Gaines v. Target Corp.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GEORGE J. HAZEL United States District Judge

Plaintiffs Tarita Latrelle Holley Gaines and James Gaines bring this action for Negligence and Loss of Consortium against Defendant Target Corporation as a result of a slip and fall at a Target store by Ms. Gaines. ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff filed this action in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland, and Defendant removed the action to this Court. ECF No. 1. Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. ECF No. 9. No. hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

According to the Complaint, on September 19, 2018, Ms. Gaines was shopping at a Target store located at 10500 Campus Way South in Largo, Maryland. ECF No. 1-1 at 10. After selecting an item to purchase, she was walking down an aisle when her foot became entangled in a “tie back wrapper and/or other debris haphazardly left on the floor causing her to fall violently to the floor.” Id. Ms. Gaines alleges she sustained injuries and damages as a result of the fall. Id.

2

Ms. Gaines asserts one court of Negligence against Target, id. at 10, while Plaintiffs jointly assert a claim of Loss of Consortium, id. at 13.

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland, on August 17, 2021. ECF No. 1-1 at 9. Target was served with a Writ of Summons and the Complaint on September 13, 2021. ECF No. 1 at 1. On September 29, 2021, Target filed a Notice of Removal asserting that this Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the action based on diversity. ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand on October 29, 2021. ECF No. 9. Defendant filed an Opposition to the Motion on November 3, 2021. ECF No. 10. No. reply memorandum was filed and the deadline for filing has passed, making the Motion ripe for resolution.

II. DISCUSSION

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Thus, “[a] defendant in a state civil action may remove the case to federal district court provided that the district court would have had original jurisdiction had the action been filed there in the first instance.” Kelly v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, No. 15-cv-1115-TDC, 2015 WL 9183428, at *1 (D. Md. Dec. 17, 2015) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). The burden of demonstrating the propriety of removal falls on the removing party. Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, Inc., 369 F.3d 811, 816 (4th Cir. 2004). On a motion to remand, as here, the Court must “strictly construe the removal statute and resolve all doubts in favor of remanding the case to state court” - consistent with federal courts' reluctance “to interfere with matters properly before a state court.” Rizwan v. Lender Servs. Inc., 176 F.Supp.3d 513, 515 (D. Md. 2016)

3

(citing Barbour v. Int'l. Union, 640 F.3d 599, 615 (4th Cir. 2011), abrogated by statute on other grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(B)).

“Federal courts have original jurisdiction over two kinds of...