DeMatteo v. Walgreen E. Co.

1

GREGORY DeMATTEO, Plaintiff, v. WALGREEN EASTERN CO., INC., Defendant

No. 3:23-cv-943 (JAM)

United States District Court, D. Maine

July 29, 2024

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER TO DISTRICT OF MAINE

JEFFREY ALKER MEYER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Plaintiff Gregory DeMatteo of Connecticut went on a summer vacation to Maine. There he went into a Walgreens store and allegedly slipped and fell on a wet floor. He has filed this federal diversity negligence lawsuit. Although the accident and claimed negligence happened in Maine, DeMatteo thinks he should be able to sue Walgreens in Connecticut because he lives here and because Walgreens-like so many national chains-operates stores and generally advertises in Connecticut.

I do not agree. I conclude that DeMatteo has failed to show that the applicable Connecticut long-arm statute allows the courts of Connecticut to exercise personal jurisdiction over national retail chain stores like Walgreens for acts of premises liability negligence that occur in stores outside Connecticut, at least in the absence of any evidence to suggest that Walgreens targeted its advertising to induce Connecticut residents to leave Connecticut to shop at Walgreens' out-of-state store locations. Therefore, I will transfer this action to the District of Maine where it should have been filed in the first place.

Background

I take the facts as stated in DeMatteo's complaint as true for the purposes of this ruling. On or about July 29, 2021 DeMatteo, a Connecticut resident, was “on vacation in Maine.”^[1]While there, he went to the Walgreens store in Biddeford, Maine.^[2] Upon entering the store, DeMatteo “stepped onto the floor which was covered with a slippery/wet substance.”^[3] He proceeded “to fall abruptly onto the floor striking his back and thus hitting his head.”^[4]

As a result of the fall, DeMatteo “sustained serious painful, and disabling injuries,” including “a cerebral concussion, loss of consciousness, disorientation headache (throbbing pressure), nausea, neck pain, numbness/tingling, dizziness (balance problems), short term memory impairment (fogginess/drowsy), attention/concentration impairment, visual changes (blurred), hyposomnia (broken sleep), and irritability.”^[5] He “suffered swelling, pain and nausea” and his “injuries have interfered with his ability to sleep at night.”^[6] DeMatteo still “suffers from pain in his head, neck shoulders, upper back, lower back, and buttocks,” as well as “a burning sensation throughout his back.”^[7]

Since the fall, DeMatteo has had “to expend large sums of money for medical care,” been “unable to perform his employment,” and “lost a significant amount of time from work.”^[8]DeMatteo anticipates that he “will be caused to expend certain sums of money for medical care and attention, doctors, physical therapy, and prescriptions” and “prevented from fully enjoying his lifestyles and pleasures.”^[9] On July 17, 2023, DeMatteo filed this federal lawsuit, seeking money damages for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, medical expenses, lost wages, interest, and costs.^[10] On October 10, Walgreens moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue.^[11] On the eve of oral argument, DeMatteo moved to transfer this action to the District of Maine as an alternative to dismissal.^[12]

Discussion

The standard that governs a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(2) is well established. A complaint may not survive unless it alleges facts that taken as true give rise to plausible grounds to sustain the Court's subject matter and personal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Brownback v. King, 592 U.S. 209 217 (2021); Daly v. Citigroup Inc., 939 F.3d 415, 425 (2d Cir. 2019); Charles Schwab Corp. v. Bank of Am. Corp., 883 F.3d 68, 81-82 (2d Cir. 2018).^[13]

Subject matter jurisdiction

Walgreens first moves to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. According to Walgreens, DeMatteo “has failed to establish diversity jurisdiction because he has not met the amount in controversy requirement set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1332.”^[14] Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).^[15] The party claiming jurisdiction “has the burden of proving that it appears to a ‘reasonable probability' that the claim is in excess of the statutory jurisdictional amount.” Scherer v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of U.S., 347 F.3d 394, 397 (2d Cir. 2003). But this burden is “hardly onerous” because courts “recognize a rebuttable presumption that the face of the complaint is a good faith representation of the actual amount in controversy.” Ibid. Conversely, the party opposing jurisdiction-here Walgreens-“must show ‘to a legal certainty' that the amount recoverable does not meet the jurisdictional threshold.” Ibid.

As an initial matter, Walgreens frivolously contends that DeMatteo's submission of a factual affidavit detailing his injuries in response to the motion to dismiss is improper and should be disregarded.^[16] But “where jurisdictional facts are placed in dispute, the court has the power and obligation to decide issues of fact by reference to evidence outside the pleadings, such as affidavits.” Tandon v. Captain's Cove Marina of Bridgeport, Inc., 752 F.3d 239, 243 (2d Cir. 2014).

DeMatteo alleges that the fall caused a myriad of medical problems, including “a cerebral concussion,” “neck pain,” “short term memory impairment,” and “hyposomnia.”^[17] He continues to suffer from these injuries and claims that he has “expend[ed] large sums of money for medical care,” “was unable to perform his employment,” and “lost a significant amount of time from work.”^[18] He further alleges that he has “incurred damages over $75,000.00 in medical expenses and losses due to inability to work, pain, and suffering.”^[19] Walgreens offers no evidence that the amount recoverable will not meet the threshold of $75,000, much less evidence to establish that fact “to a legal certainty.” See Universal N. Am. Ins. Co. v. Dellacamera, 2014 WL 12767450, at *2 (D. Conn. 2014) (finding that although plaintiff did not substantiate his claims with medical records or bills, his allegations of injuries, treatment, and loss of work were sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).

Although Walgreens faults DeMatteo for failing to claim a specific dollar amount of damages, a “plaintiff need not allege a specific number to meet the [amount-in-controversy] threshold.” Knowlek v. NRT New Eng. LLC, 2023 WL 7282364, at *3 (D. Conn. 2023). Accordingly, I am satisfied that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and will deny Walgreens' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Long-arm jurisdiction

Walgreens next moves to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. As the Second Circuit has explained, there are generally three reasons why a federal court may lack personal jurisdiction over any particular defendant. First, the defendant may not have been served with process in technical compliance with the procedures required for serving a summons and complaint. Second, if the defendant is from outside the State where the federal court is located, the defendant may not be subject under state law to the “long-arm” jurisdiction of the courts of that State. Third, the exercise of jurisdiction over a defendant who lives outside the State where a court is located may not comport with constitutional principles of fairness and due process. See generally U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Bank of Am. N.A., 916 F.3d 143, 149 (2d Cir. 2019); Reich v. Lopez, 858 F.3d 55, 63 (2d Cir. 2017); Waldman v. Palestine Liberation Org., 835 F.3d 317, 327 (2d Cir. 2016). Here, Walgreens argues in part that it is not subject to personal jurisdiction under Connecticut's long-arm statute.^[20]

A long-arm statute allows the courts of one State to exercise jurisdiction over individuals or entities that are residents or citizens of another State. Although long-arm statutes are constructs of state law, they matter to federal courts because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally condition the “establish[ing of] personal jurisdiction over a defendant” on whether the defendant “is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(1)(A).

Here, DeMatteo has sued an out-of-state corporation. Connecticut's long-arm statute for lawsuits against foreign corporations-Conn. Gen. Stat. § 33-929(f)- affords various grounds for the exercise of personal jurisdiction. But the only one relied on here by DeMatteo is that this lawsuit arises from “any cause of action arising . . . out of any business solicited in this state by mail or otherwise if the corporation has repeatedly so solicited business.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 33-929(f)(2).^[21]

The Connecticut Supreme Court has found this statutory requirement to be satisfied “if, at the time the defendant engaged in solicitation in Connecticut, it was reasonably foreseeable that, as a result of that solicitation, the defendant could be sued in Connecticut by a solicited person on a cause of action similar to that now being brought by the plaintiff.” Thomason v. Chem. Bank, 234 Conn. 281, 296 (1995) (interpreting predecessor statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 33-411(c)(2)), abrogated on other grounds by Adams v. Aircraft Spruce & Specialty Co., 345 Conn. 312, 351-54 (2022).^[22] So the core...