Peabody v. Wal-Mart, et al.

2012 DNH 181
CourtDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire
DecidedOctober 16, 2012
Docket12-CV-209-SM
StatusPublished

This text of 2012 DNH 181 (Peabody v. Wal-Mart, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Peabody v. Wal-Mart, et al., 2012 DNH 181 (D.N.H. 2012).

Opinion

Peabody v . Wal-Mart, et a l . 12-CV-209-SM 10/16/12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kaitlyn Peabody, Plaintiff

v. Case N o . 12-cv-209-SM Opinion N o . 2012 DNH 181 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and George Savage, Defendants

O R D E R

Plaintiff’s motion to remand (doc. n o . 3 ) is granted.

Plaintiff objects to removal on the basis that the amount in

controversy does not exceed $75,000. Her argument is probably

not supportable, but remand is warranted in any event. Under the

removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2), “[a] civil action

otherwise removable solely on the basis of [diversity

jurisdiction], . . . may not be removed if any of the parties in

interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of

the State in which such action is brought.” Here, defendant

George Savage is a citizen of New Hampshire.

That defect is procedural in nature, and may, therefore, be

waived. Samaan v . S t . Joseph Hosp., 670 F.3d 2 1 , 28 (1st Cir.

2012) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). A plaintiff waives the

Section 1442(b)(2) requirement where she “proceed[s] in federal court without objection.” Stromberg v . Costello, 456 F. Supp.

848, 849 (D. Mass. 1978). Here, although the plaintiff advances

an argument in support of remand that misses the mark, there is

no question that she is objecting to removal and is not

voluntarily proceeding in this federal forum. Compare Samaan,

670 F.3d at 28 (finding waiver where plaintiff, in addition to

“not rais[ing] the defendants’ Maine citizenship in support of

his motion to remand,” also “litigated the case for years”).

Accordingly, the court finds that removal was defective and

plaintiff has not waived the defect. Her motion to remand (doc.

n o . 3 ) is granted.

SO ORDERED.

Steven J. McAuliffe 'United States District Judge October 16, 2012

cc: Richard E. Fradette, Esq. Christopher B. Kaczmarek, Esq.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Stromberg v. Costello
456 F. Supp. 848 (D. Massachusetts, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2012 DNH 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peabody-v-wal-mart-et-al-nhd-2012.