Lenore Grogan Files Personal Injury Suit Against Wal‑Mart Stores East in SDNY

Lenore Grogan filed a federal personal-injury action against Wal‑Mart Stores East, LP in the U.S. Southern District of New York, with the complaint recorded March 4, 2026 and docket entries visible on Justia and PACERMonitor. The public reporting identifies the case caption Grogan v. Wal‑Mart Stores East, LP and categorizes the filing as P.I.: Other; the available records do not include a case number or the complaint text.

Beyond the initial filing metadata, no counsel names, alleged facts, claimed damages, or subsequent docket activity for Grogan are present in the public summaries reviewed. The absence of a PACER case number and complaint PDF means the nature of Grogan’s injury, the legal theory asserted, and whether the case originated in state court or was filed initially in federal court remain unreported in the current docket snapshots.

The Grogan filing joins a string of recent matters that name Wal‑Mart or Walmart Stores East entities in personal-injury and product-liability suits across multiple federal districts. In a Georgia slip-and-fall matter involving Maria and Oscar Howell, pre-suit negotiations included a plaintiff demand of $400,000 and a Walmart counter-offer of $25,000; the Howell complaint, filed January 24, 2020, alleged medical expenses of $46,008.41 and lost wages of $10,000.00. That Howell case was removed to federal court on February 17, 2020, produced a sua sponte federal show-cause order on amount in controversy, and later saw a trial-court stage motion in April 2022 in which the court declined to cap recovery at $75,000 after finding changed circumstances.

TheChampionFirm’s analysis of the Howell appeals posture lays out one litigation lesson: “This case illustrates the doctrine of judicial estoppel and how it may be overcome by a trial court’s wide latitude in examining the change of circumstances. Further, it emphasizes the duty of a party to seek discovery regarding claimed damages in the context of satisfying the amount in controversy requirement for a federal diversity case when the defendant seeks to remove the case to federal court,” Darl Champion, owner and lead attorney of The Champion Firm, wrote.

Separate docket records show other Walmart-related suits filed this year: Marks v. Walmart Stores East I, LP, case number 6:26-cv-03125, was filed February 26, 2026 in the U.S. Western District of Missouri by plaintiff Kyley Marks against The Coleman Company, Inc. and Walmart Stores East I, LP, with Peterson & Associates appearing for the plaintiff and Foulston Siefkin for the defendant in a product-liability case. Older federal records confirm that courts have, at times, required precise corporate captioning: a federal order in Judy Smith v. Wal‑Mart Stores East, LP directed substitution, stating, “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to substitute defendant Wal‑Mart Stores East, LP, for WalMart Stores, Inc.”

For reporters and interested parties seeking the substance of Grogan’s claims, the next verifiable step is to pull the Grogan docket on PACER for the U.S. Southern District of New York to obtain the case number, complaint PDF, summons, and any corporate-disclosure statement. Until that docket is retrieved, public records confirm only the filing date, court, plaintiff name, defendant caption as Grogan v. Wal‑Mart Stores East, LP, and that Justia and PACERMonitor list the matter.