Walmart Removes Taylors' Assault, Libel and Slander Suit to Federal Court

Plaintiffs Eusebio Taylor and Draphy Taylor have moved a case described on the state docket as involving assault, libel and slander into the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, where Walmart Inc. filed a Notice of Removal on Jan. 28, 2026. Walmart’s filing, entered on the federal docket under case number 3:26-cv-97-JPG, lists Brittany P. Warren as counsel for the defendant and includes a civil cover sheet and three exhibits.

The federal docket records that Walmart paid a removal filing fee: "Filing fee $ 405 receipt number AILSDC-5833413." The court opened the case the next day and assigned it to Judge J. Phil Gilbert, noting that "Judge J. Phil Gilbert assigned" and instructing parties that "All future documents must bear case number 3:26-cv-97-JPG." Walmart also filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 disclosure with its appearance on the docket.

A Jan. 29 entry directed at the plaintiffs, labeled a Notice of Action and addressed to "Pro Se Plaintiffs," informed them that the court had not received a required disclosure with the attached materials and that the matter was being submitted to the presiding judge. The docket reproduces the court’s language: "Because the required Disclosure Statement was not filed with the attached, this matter is being submitted to the presiding judge for further action. ... THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED."

The federal removal shifts the case from the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in St. Clair County, Illinois (state case no. 2025LA1512) to a different procedural track with distinct discovery rules and scheduling practices. For Walmart employees and managers, that can mean a higher likelihood that store-level witnesses, asset-protection records, surveillance footage and personnel files may be sought in discovery or via subpoena. Corporate counsel’s appearance in federal court typically centralizes document production and witness coordination, and store leaders may hear from corporate HR or legal teams about preservation and collection of relevant materials.

Details about the underlying allegations, the contents of the state-court complaint, and the exhibits attached to the Notice of Removal are not on the public federal summary. The case docket does not list counsel for the Taylors and the Jan. 29 entry refers to the plaintiffs as pro se; copies of the Notice of Removal and its Exhibits A–C will be the next documents to examine to learn the factual basis for the assault, libel and slander labels.

For employees, the immediate takeaway is preparatory: expect contact from Walmart’s legal or HR departments if the company determines witnesses or records are relevant, and be aware that the matter will proceed under federal procedures overseen by Judge J. Phil Gilbert. Reporters and interested parties should monitor the federal docket for Filing 1 and subsequent orders to see whether the plaintiffs file a response and how the court resolves any procedural issues flagged in the Jan. 29 notice.