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.
