Atkinson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., _____ F. Supp. _____, 2008 WL 2261787 (M.D., Fla.).
Really, what’s not to love. Especially Sam’s Club. Hundred roll packs of toilet paper (All I am saying, a house full of men uses A LOT of TP). Giant bottles of ketchup (a vegetable in my house). Plus, as class action defense types, who would not love Wal-Mart, a company that unfairly and routinely incurs the wrath of many a group of disgruntled employees.
One such group was Richard Armatrout, as the executor of the Estate of Karen Armatrout et al. Perhaps you are asking yourself, Armatrout? What happened to Atkinson? The answer is, I do not know. The decision denying the plaintiffs’ motion to remand to state court that is the subject of this blog post provided virtually no details of the underlying case. What we do know is that the Plaintiff group in this case sued Wal-Mart (Oh ye, great purveyor of giant jars of relish and snow tires) for claims arising out of Corporate Life Insurance Polices (COLI) whose benefits were paid to Wal-Mart upon the deaths of the employees.
The class included the estates of those deceased employees located in Florida. The plaintiffs’ original pleading alleged that there were “more than 50 estates.” The evidence showed that Wal-Mart received approximately $72,000 following Armatrout’s death. In a prior decision, referred to as Armatrout I, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ action for failure to meet the jurisdictional minimum.
The plaintiff amended its petition and alleged the potential number of class claimants to “likely exceed” 100. Ding, Ding, Ding! The plaintiff was able to show that in aggregate the claims would exceed CAFA’s jurisdictional limits and the case would proceed in federal court.
With all that said, it is lunch. And I have a 25 pound can of sauerkraut I have been working on eating for lunch over the last week. I am starting to get notes like this:
and like this: