PHILADELPHIA – A local woman alleges Macy’s negligently allowed an incompletely-finished and/or structured desk on the showroom floor, which gave way when she leaned on it and caused her to suffer both knee and spinal injuries.
Juanita Johnson of Philadelphia first filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on April 5 versus Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc. (c/o Corporate Creations Network, Inc.) of Erie.
“On or about Oct. 11, 2021, the plaintiff was a lawfully business invitee of the defendant’s retail store located 2399 Cottman Avenue, Philadelphia, Pa. in the furniture department, when she leaned back into a desk on the showroom floor, which desk collapsed to the ground when the legs broke off, resulting the plaintiff falling backwards on the broken desk and floor and as a result of this fall, the plaintiff did sustain the injuries and damages herein below more fully described,” the suit says.
“As a result of the aforesaid occurrence, the plaintiff was caused to sustain serious and painful personal injuries rendering her sick, sore and disordered and more particularly, she sustained a serious impairment of a bodily function, including but not limited to, high grade sprain of ACL with partial thickness tear, lateral meniscal tear, C2-3 central herniation indenting the thecal sac, C3-4 broad based herniations, C4-5 broad based herniations, C5-6 broad based herniations, complete thickness tear of the supraspinatus tendon, infraspinatus and subscapularis tendinosis with partial thickness tear of distal fibres, cervical radiculopathy and sprain and a severe shock to her nerves and nervous system, some or all of which injuries may be permanent in nature.”
The suit adds the defendant “knew or should have known that the desk was not assembled properly or securely or was delivered pre-assembled improperly, so that when plaintiff leaned against same it collapsed to the ground when the legs broke off the desk.”
The defendant filed to remove the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 5, pointing to diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount of damages in question.
“Macy’s Retail Holdings, LLC, is an Ohio Limited Liability Company with its principal places of business located at 151 West 34th Street, New York, NY 10001. For purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction, it is not a citizen of Pennsylvania and does not maintain its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Accordingly, because plaintiff and defendant Macy’s Retail Holdings, LLC, formerly Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc., are citizens of different states, complete diversity of citizenship exists between the parties in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1441,” the removal notice stated.
“For removal, in addition to complete diversity, the amount in controversy must be in excess of $75,000. Defendants are required to present sufficient proofs in the removal petition that that amount in controversy reaches the $75,000 threshold by a preponderance of the evidence. Plaintiff further contends in her complaint that her injuries may be permanent in nature. Plaintiff yet further alleges to have suffered a loss and depreciation of her earning capacity.”
The defense then pointed to a number of verdicts which have eclipsed the $75,000 threshold as evidence for the case’s removal to federal court. Accompanying the notice of removal was an answer to the complaint, which denied the active allegations and included affirmative defenses.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted against defendant Macy’s. All allegations pertaining to agency, employment, supervision, or control are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. Plaintiff’s claims are barred or limited by the terms of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, the relevant portions of which are incorporated by reference herein and made a part hereof,” per those defenses.
“Plaintiff’s claims for medical expenses must be reduced by the total amount of any and all medical expenses charged, but not actually paid by or on behalf of plaintiffs. Any amount of medical expenses claimed by plaintiffs must be reduced by any expenses written off or deducted by any health care provider. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Macy’s are barred as plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages were caused by the superseding and/or intervening acts of others over whom defendant Macy’s maintained no control or right of control.”
For a count of violating the plaintiff’s due process rights through 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the plaintiff is seeking
The plaintiff is represented by Michael Luber of Luber Law, in Philadelphia.
The defendant Anthony W. Hinkle of Cipriani & Werner, in Blue Bell.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-01743
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 230400405
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com