Steven Michael Miller v. Walmart Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC, Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, Walmart Supercenter Store #470

• Court: District Court, W.D. Texas
• Decided: February 19, 2026
• Docket: 5:25-cv-01625
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

STEVEN MICHAEL MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. SA-25-CV-01625-JKP

WALMART INC., WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC, WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST, WALMART SUPERCENTER STORE #470,

Defendants.

ORDER OF REMAND Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 11). In the Joint Mo- tion, the parties state: 3. Following removal, Plaintiff stipulates by signature of his counsel below that he does not seek, nor would he accept, more than $75,000.00 in total damages against Defendants for the entirety of claims made in his lawsuit. Plaintiff also stipulates that this stipulation limiting damages to no more than $75,000.00 ap- plies to all personal injury damages and property damages and is irrevocable and that he will not seek to modify this stipulation.

4. As a result, the Parties agree that remand of this case is appropriate, and they respectfully request that the Court grant this Motion and enter an order re- manding this action to the state district court from whence it was removed.

Id. at 1–2. Accordingly, Plaintiff has presented Defendants with a stipulation that the amount in con- troversy in this case does not exceed $75,000. Based on that presentation, Defendants agree that this case should be remanded. Absent an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this case.' The Court thus GRANTS the Joint Motion, (ECF No. 11). For the reasons stated in this Order, the Court REMANDS this matter to the 131st Judi- cial District Court, Bexar County, Texas. The Clerk of Court shall effect this remand in accord- ance with the usual procedure of the Court consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The parties are responsible for their own costs, expenses, and attorney fees. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to close this matter for all purposes. It is SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 19th day of February, 2026. C\ Nb) y ALDEN". VXALLANV\ JASON PULLIA NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

‘Tn addition, Defendants’ decision not to oppose remand provides sufficient grounds to reman on its own. Brown v. Heintz, No. 16-13697, 2017 WL 604034, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 15, 2017) (collecting cases); see also Williams v. Par- ker, 843 F.3d 617, 621 (Sth Cir. 2016) (“[T]he party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence.” (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04 (1998))); Jackson v. City of New Orleans, No. 95-1340, 1995 WL 599046, at *1 (E.D. La. Oct. 10, 1995) (holding that plaintiff's remand motion “could be granted as unopposed”).