Sabra Harris v. Walmart Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
DISCUSSION
In opposing remand, Walmart first argues that the motion should be denied because Plaintiff did not comply with the meet-and-confer requirements in Local Rule 7-3 or the Court’s standing order. The latter requires, among other things, that “Parties must meet and confer either by videoconference, or in person. Email correspondence is insufficient; and motions not supported by a statement that counsel met by videoconference, or in person will be summarily denied.” Dkt. No. 7 at 8. Plaintiff, who only corresponded by email with Walmart and did not address the substance of her motion until the day she filed it, admits in her reply that she did not follow the Court’s procedures. Dkt. No. 38 at 17. Nevertheless, because Plaintiff’s motion challenges the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court must resolve the parties’ dispute even in the absence of a remand motion. See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (“[C]ourts . . . have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.”). The Court therefore declines to summarily deny Plaintiff’s motion.