PITTSBURGH – Walmart has removed to federal court and denied the claims of a lawsuit from an 81-year-old woman, which alleged that she and her great-granddaughter were assaulted, threatened with criminal arrest and wrongfully detained while shopping at one of the company’s stores just over one year ago.
Willie Mae Stinson and K.S.S., a minor (by Willie Mae Stinson, parent and legal guardian) first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 6 versus Walmart, Inc. of Bentonville, Ark.
“Ms. Stinson (age 81) and her adopted daughter and biological great granddaughter, K.S.S., (age 8) were assaulted and threatened with criminal arrest and wrongfully detainment at the Walmart Supercenter located at 100 Walmart Drive, North Versailles, PA 15137 on Saturday, Aug. 6, 2022 at approximately 2 p.m., when they entered the store as customers. As Ms. Stinson and K.S.S. entered the store, they walked to the customer service desk to return an item. Ms. Stinson had a receipt. They waited in line and when it was their turn, a heavyset Walmart employee approached Willie Mae, called her ‘Linda King’, and told her that she was a criminal, a thief, she was not welcome here, and get out,” the suit said.
“At first she ignored him because her name is not Linda King. In the area of the service desk, she was again confronted by name, the wrong name, and told she must get out. Ms. Stinson told the Walmart employee that she is not Linda King. He kept yelling. A crowd gathered. The Walmart yelled at the customer service representative saying, ‘Do not wait on her, she is a thief, she is trespassing. She is not allowed in any of our stores.’ The police were called, and the police asked to see her ID.”
The suit added that Ms. Stinson pulled out her wallet to show her driver’s license and the police were satisfied that there was a mistaken identity, but the Walmart employee continued yelling and the surrounding crowd began to close in.
“Ms. Stinson did not feel well, she had to sit down and collapsed into a chair. The Walmart employee insisted that Ms. Stinson was really Linda King and K.S.S., the eight-year-old, was taken away for questioning. The child was asked her mother’s name. A paramedic unit was called. Ms. Stinson had syncope and was taken to [UPMC] McKeesport Hospital by the paramedic. Ms. Stinson’s torponin-HS levels rose to 59, and a prolonged q-wave, suggestive of a heart attack. She was hospitalized for two days for observation and testing. She was released on the evening of Monday, Aug. 8, 2022,” the suit stated.
“K.S.S. was also traumatized by the incident, as she had observed her great-grandmother, who is [also] her adoptive mother, collapse and was then taken away for questioning. K.S.S. received medical care on Aug. 10, 2022 at her primary care physician’s office, located at UPMC Children’s Community Pediatrics. She could not sleep and had nightmares. It was recommended that she seek follow-up treatment. K.S.S. received medical care on Sept. 27, 2022. Willie Mae Stinson was a frequent shopper at Walmart and known to the store manager Lola. There was no legitimate reason for anyone to call Willie Mae Stinson by the name Linda King. There was no legitimate reason for anyone to accuse Willie Mae Stinson of theft. The conduct was outrageous.”
UPDATE
After an amended complaint was filed on Sept. 14, counsel for Walmart filed to remove the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 16, citing diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount of contested damages at issue.
“Defendant believes that at the time this action was initially commenced, and at the current time, plaintiffs were residents of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Defendant Walmart, Inc., (correctly titled Walmart Inc.) is a corporation formed in the state of Delaware with a principle place of business in Bentonville, Arkansas. Accordingly, it is not a citizen of nor does it have a principal place of business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The complaint seeks an award in excess of the arbitration limits of Allegheny County ($50,000), but no specific sum is demanded in the complaint,” the removal motion stated, in part.
“Further, undersigned counsel communicated with plaintiffs’ counsel by phone and email on Oct. 11, 2023, asking if plaintiffs would agree to stipulate to a cap on damages at less than $75,000, and plaintiffs’ declined to make such a stipulation. Accordingly, based on these alleged injuries and damages, defendant believes that this matter exceeds the threshold amount of $75,000 necessary for diversity jurisdiction. As all of the parties to this action are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, this Court has original jurisdiction under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 and this case may be removed to this Court by the defendant, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sections 1441 and 1446.”
The same day, Walmart answered the complaint, denied its substantive allegations and provided 10 affirmative defenses on its own behalf.
“Plaintiffs’ amended complaint and each and every cause of action alleged therein fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for which relief may be granted. Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts that would sustain a cause of action for assault against defendant, as no actions allegedly taken by Walmart employees were taken with the intent cause offensive or harmful bodily contact with plaintiffs or to put plaintiffs in reasonable fear of harmful or offensive physical contact. At all times material hereto, defendant acted reasonably and in good faith. Plaintiffs’ claims are limited to, barred by, and subject to the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act and defendant aver that, to the extent revealed in discovery, the plaintiffs’ own negligence may be a bar to and/or in diminution of any claim against defendant to the extent of said negligence or culpable conduct. Walmart pleads the affirmative defenses of assumption of the risk, comparative negligence and contributory negligence. Any injuries, losses, and/or damages allegedly sustained by plaintiffs, which injuries, losses, and/or damages are denied, are not the result of any action and/or inaction of Walmart, but rather of other persons, including plaintiffs,” the defenses stated.
“To the extent revealed in discovery, plaintiffs failed to take reasonable steps to reduce plaintiffs’ claims, damages, losses, if any, and that said failure to mitigate plaintiffs’ damages bars or reduces any claims, losses, or damages. The conduct of the defendant and its employees was not extreme or outrageous under the circumstances, and the alleged wrongful conduct of defendant and its employees was not intentional or reckless. Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts that would sustain a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The actions of defendant were not the cause of any alleged emotional distress. At the time of the incident alleged in the amended complaint, plaintiffs were suffering from pre-existing conditions, which caused or contributed to the damages plaintiffs are claiming. Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages violates, and is therefore barred by, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.”
For counts of negligence and infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiffs are seeking, individually, jointly and severally, compensatory damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of arbitration, punitive damages, interest, costs of suit and such other and further relief as this Court deems just.
The plaintiffs are represented by Barbara Ernsberger of Behrend & Ernsberger, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Rebecca Sember Izsak and G. Richard Murphy of Thomas Thomas & Hafer, also in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-01768
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-010372
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com