Jerry Hall v. QuikTrip Corporation

Hall · United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division · February 9, 2026 · No. 1:25-cv-01702-SDG

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia grants Jerry Hall’s motion to remand his slip-and-fall negligence action against QuikTrip Corporation. The court concludes that QuikTrip failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 for diversity jurisdiction.

Court
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division
Writing for the Court
Steven D. Grimberg
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division
Decision date
February 9, 2026
Docket number
1:25-cv-01702-SDG
Procedural posture
Plaintiff moved to remand a removed diversity action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, specifically disputing whether the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
Standard of review
The removing party bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. When the amount in controversy is contested, the removing party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional threshold is satisfied.
Precedential value
Unknown; unpublished district court opinion
Disposition
remanded

Topics

subject matter jurisdictioncivil procedurenegligencepersonal injurydamages

Practice areas

federal jurisdictionremoval and remandpersonal injury litigation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether QuikTrip established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
  2. Whether Hall's $500,000 pre-suit settlement demand established the amount in controversy.
  3. Whether Hall's responses to requests for admission established or conclusively affected the amount in controversy.

Holdings

  1. The amount in controversy was not facially apparent from Hall's complaint because the complaint identified $15,441.43 in medical expenses but did not provide sufficient factual or monetary detail concerning the remaining categories of damages.
  2. Hall's $500,000 pre-suit settlement demand did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
  3. Hall's responses of '[n]either admit nor deny' to requests for admission concerning the amount in controversy did not establish that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 or otherwise conclusively determine federal jurisdiction.
  4. The court lacked diversity subject matter jurisdiction because QuikTrip did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

Key quotations

In such a case, both sides submit proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied. (Section II)
Taken together, Hall’s demand appears to predominately reflect the puffing and posturing of settlement negotiations and is therefore entitled to little weight in determining the amount in controversy. (Section III.B)

Factual background

Hall slipped on black ice at a QuikTrip store in Union City, Georgia, on December 3, 2024. He alleged injuries including a left ankle contusion, left knee abrasion, headache, and several sprains, and claimed $15,441.43 in past medical expenses. Hall asserted negligence, punitive-damages, and attorney-fee claims, while QuikTrip relied on a $500,000 pre-suit settlement demand and discovery responses to support removal jurisdiction.

Procedural history

Hall filed a negligence action in the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia. QuikTrip removed the action to the Northern District of Georgia on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The district court granted Hall's motion to remand, directed the clerk to return the case to state court, and closed the federal action.

Remand instructions

The Clerk of Court was directed to remand the case to the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia, close the federal action, and correct QuikTrip Corporation's name on the docket consistent with the notice of removal.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…