CHARLESTON - A month after it was removed to federal court, a Wood County man's personal injury suit against a cosmetics company has been dismissed, but his claims against one of its independent consultants remains.
U.S. District Judge John T. Copenhaver Jr. on Sept. 1 dismissed the Dallas, Texas-based Mary Kay Inc. as co-defendant in a lawsuit filed by Vienna resident Chaad E. Moore. Copenhaver's order came three days after Moore's attorney, Bruce M. White, stipulated the dismissal of the direct-marketing cosmetics retailer from the case.
Since Moore agreed to dismiss Mary Kay Inc. from the suit, Copenhaver ruled the motion its attorney Richard E. Rowe made on July 31 as moot. Court records show, Rowe, with the Charleston law firm of Goodwin and Goodwin, made a motion to dismiss on the grounds that Moore failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
Despite the dismissal of Mary Kay Inc., the case remains open against Devon Bossory, a Michigan resident, and independent Mary Kay consultant. Citing diversity of jurisdiction, Mary Kay Inc., with Bossory's consent, on July 29 removed the suit from Jackson Circuit Court where it was originally filed on June 29.
In his original complaint, Moore alleged when he was dispatched to the Marathon gas station in Ravenswood to help Bossory change a flat tire on the U-Haul truck she was driving on May 11, he was bitten by one of her dogs.
Eight days prior to the removal, Bossory filed her reply to Moore's suit. In her reply filed pro se, she denies that her dog was permitted to run loose, or that it bite Moore.
Also, she denied he entered the U-Haul to set the brake, and she was, at the time, working as a Mary Kay consultant.
Since filing her reply, Bossory has hired Charleston attorney Robert Q. Sayre who, records show, filed a notice of appearance on Aug. 31.
Still pending before Copenhaver is motion White made on Aug. 14 to have the case remanded back to Jackson Circuit Court. In his motion, White argued for remand on the grounds that the amount of Moore's injuries do not exceed the federal court's $75,000 threshold.
The Defendant's assertion that the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 is false," White said. "This is pure speculation and not based upon any fact whatsoever."
"Furthermore," he added, "plaintiff stipulates that the value of this case is less than $75,000."
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Case No. 09-cv-00862