Walker v. Walmart, Inc., 5:25-cv-00009

Wilma Walker sued Walmart, Inc. and related defendants in state court; defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
Defendants failed to timely file their corporate disclosure statements as required by Rule 7.1, leading them to request an extension.
Walker (plaintiff) moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing the lack of timely disclosures failed to establish diversity jurisdiction.
Defendants cured the disclosure defect and confirmed all relevant entities are not Kentucky citizens, preserving diversity jurisdiction.
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge King to resolve the competing motion for extension and motion to remand.
The recent Sixth Circuit decision clarified courts retain jurisdiction if complete diversity is ultimately established, even after late disclosures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of Rule 7.1 disclosure	Late disclosures fail to establish diversity at removal; warrants remand	Initial defect in Rule 7.1 cured; remand not the proper remedy	Extension granted; defective disclosure cured
Remedy for disclosure defects under Rule 7.1	Remand to state court is required for late or insufficient disclosure	Federal cases say remand is not the remedy for corporate disclosure defects	Remand denied; late filing is not grounds for remand
Existence of complete diversity jurisdiction	Defendants haven’t shown complete diversity due to untimely disclosure	All defendants confirmed not Kentucky citizens; diversity exists	Complete diversity confirmed; federal jurisdiction ok
Impact of recent appellate clarification	(Not specifically addressed)	Recent 6th Circuit holds court can retain jurisdiction if diversity exists	Follow binding appellate decision; federal court keeps case

Rogers v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 230 F.3d 868 (6th Cir. 2000) (removing defendant has the burden to prove diversity jurisdiction)