Peabody v . Wal-Mart, et a l . 12-CV-209-SM 10/16/12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kaitlyn Peabody, Plaintiff

v. Case N o . 12-cv-209-SM Opinion N o .

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and George Savage, Defendants

O R D E R

Plaintiff’s motion to remand (doc. n o . 3 ) is granted.

Plaintiff objects to removal on the basis that the amount in

controversy does not exceed $75,000. Her argument is probably

not supportable, but remand is warranted in any event. Under the

removal statute,

(b)(2), “[a] civil action

otherwise removable solely on the basis of [diversity

jurisdiction], . . . may not be removed if any of the parties in

interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of

the State in which such action is brought.” Here, defendant

George Savage is a citizen of New Hampshire.

That defect is procedural in nature, and may, therefore, be

waived. Samaan v . S t . Joseph Hosp.,

1 , 28 (1st Cir.

2012) (citing

(c)). A plaintiff waives the

Section 1442(b)(2) requirement where she “proceed[s] in federal court without objection.” Stromberg v . Costello,

(D. Mass. 1978). Here, although the plaintiff advances

an argument in support of remand that misses the mark, there is

no question that she is objecting to removal and is not

voluntarily proceeding in this federal forum. Compare Samaan,

670 F.3d at 28 (finding waiver where plaintiff, in addition to

“not rais[ing] the defendants’ Maine citizenship in support of

his motion to remand,” also “litigated the case for years”).

Accordingly, the court finds that removal was defective and

plaintiff has not waived the defect. Her motion to remand (doc.

n o . 3 ) is granted.

SO ORDERED.

Steven J. McAuliffe 'United States District Judge October 16, 2012

cc: Richard E. Fradette, Esq. Christopher B. Kaczmarek, Esq.

2