The issue here was whether Wal-Mart had properly removed this slip-and-fall case on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. She argued that there was no diversity of citizenship because Wal-Mart’s counsel had asserted the “correct entity for this lawsuit was Wal-Mart Stores Texas L.L.C.” Slip op. at 2. The District Court rejected this contention because the Texas entity had not been substituted and the named defendant was a resident of Delaware and Arkansas for diversity purposes. Id. at 2-3. The District Court found, however, that Wal-Mart had failed to demonstrate the requisite $75,000 amount in controversy. The removal papers merely recited that the required amount was at issue. On the other hand, Barreras had invoked the expedited Texas procedures for cases under $100,000 in her petition and there was no evidence on the severity of the accident. The District Court noted that Barreras had refused to stipulate that her damages were below the $75,000 removal threshold, but it gave no that fact little or no weight. Id. at 3-5.
Judge Rodriguez Enters Summary Judgment in Foreclosure Case
The District Court was troubled by this case because the property owners had “tried their best to work with [the bank] in modifying their mortgage.” Slip op. 14. But the summary judgment evidence showed that the proposed modification agreement specified it was not effective until signed and the statute of frauds precluded any oral modification. Slip op. at 9-11. Thus, the District Court entered summary judgment dismissing their breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, and wrongful foreclosure claims. Id. at 9-19.
Judge Rodriguez Enters Summary Judgment in Employment Dispute Over Tennis Elbow
Working for a government contractor can add wrinkles to employment disputes. This case illustrates the point. Seaborn Health Care provided phlebotomy services at Lackland Air Force Base. Overton was a Seaborn employee onsite at Lackland, where she drew blood and checked patients in using a computer system. Slip op. at 1. She worked directly under the supervision of two sergeants and without any Seaborn supervisor onsite. Id. Overton developed tennis elbow, which she believed was caused by repeatedly drawing blood. After the injury flared up a second time, she was released to work, but limited to drawing blood for no more than two hours. Id. at 2. A feud erupted when one of the sergeants interpreted the restrictions to mean Overton was to return home after the two hours of work and the sergeant exercised her contractual right to prohibit Seaborn from using Overton at Lackland. Id. Seaborn then terminated Overton. Id. at 3.
The District Court concluded that her claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 and section 451 of the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act failed because (a) there was no evidence that Seaborn refused any requested accommodation, (b) the accommodation she cited during the litigation (checking patients in and training students) was not reasonable because it would have violated her doctor’s restrictions and shifted more work to others, (c) there was no evidence of disability discrimination, and (d) Overton’s confrontation with the Lackland personnel was a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating her. Id. at 8-12. Therefore, the District Court entered summary judgment against Overton. Id. at 13.