ST. LOUIS — A federal court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Missouri resident against Walmart Claims Services, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Kenta Little claimed he suffered severe health issues after consuming expired grapefruit juice purchased from a Walmart store and sought $10 million in damages.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ruled on Nov. 5, that Little’s case failed to meet the requirements for federal jurisdiction under either diversity of citizenship or federal question jurisdiction.
The dismissal, issued by Judge Henry Edward Autrey, came after Little was unable to sufficiently address the court’s concerns following an earlier order to show cause.
Little, a 47-year-old Vandalia resident and Army veteran alleged that drinking Ocean Spray Ruby Red Grapefruit Juice—expired by five months—exacerbated his preexisting traumatic brain injury and other health conditions.
He claimed the juice caused symptoms including nausea, blurred vision, headaches and diarrhea. He sought medical treatment for his ailments approximately one month later and alleged ongoing neurological and psychological issues.
In addition to citing violations of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), Little claimed Walmart breached Missouri state laws regarding product liability.
In a subsequent response to the court’s order to show cause, he sought to amend his complaint to include claims under various federal statutes, including Environmental Protection Agency regulations, the Food Quality Protection Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act.
For diversity jurisdiction to apply, federal law requires the parties to reside in different states and the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000.
Little failed to conclusively demonstrate Walmart’s state of incorporation, a necessary element to establish that the parties were from different states.
Moreover, the court found Little’s claim of damages lacked sufficient evidence to justify the $10 million demand, relying instead on vague and unsupported assertions.
Federal courts also have jurisdiction over cases involving federal laws or constitutional questions. However, the court ruled that Little’s reliance on the FDCA and other federal statutes did not provide a valid basis for federal question jurisdiction.
The court noted that private citizens cannot bring claims under the FDCA, and Little did not specify applicable provisions under other cited federal statutes.
The court emphasized that although self-represented litigants are given some leniency, they must still meet the fundamental requirements of federal jurisdiction. It declined to craft legal arguments or infer facts not explicitly presented in the complaint.
"Although the Court is to give plaintiff’s complaint the benefit of a liberal construction, the Court will not create facts or construct claims," the opinion stated. "...Given the aforementioned, plaintiff has not presented facts demonstrating this Court has federal question jurisdiction over this matter."
The court dismissed Little’s case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). This means he could potentially refile in state court or another appropriate venue if jurisdictional requirements are met. The court also stated that any appeal of the dismissal would not be taken in good faith.
Little is representing himself. He did not respond to requests for comment.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Northern Division case number: 2:24-cv-00065