Ramirez sues Wal‑Mart Stores Texas LLC over alleged personal injury

Fredoanna Ramirez filed a personal‑injury case against Wal‑Mart Stores Texas, LLC that was docketed Feb. 20, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas as 4:26-cv-00194, with Judge Mark Pittman assigned to the matter. The docket classifies the claim under “360 Torts - Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury” and lists the statutory basis as “28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury.”

Court docket entries show Wal‑Mart filed a Notice of Removal at 11:16 AM on Feb. 20, 2026; the filing fee listed for that notice is $405 and the receipt number is ATXNDC-16212556. The removal filing triggered the clerk’s new case handling: a second docket entry at 2:21 PM the same day recorded administrative instructions and confirmed the filing fee had been paid and the file forwarded to Judge Pittman.

The clerk’s new case notes include procedural warnings directed at counsel and the plaintiff: “Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge. Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. Attorneys are further reminded that, if necessary, they must comply with Local Rule 83.10(a) within 14 days or risk the possible dismissal of this case without prejudice or without further notice.” The entry also instructs counsel to read judge‑specific requirements including Dondi Properties Corp. v. Commerce Savings & Loan Assoc., 121 F.R.D. 284 (N.D. Tex. 1988) and the Local Civil Rules of the district.

Pacermonitor’s docket capture lists attorneys for both sides: plaintiff counsel are Christopher S. Hamilton and Sean T. Cook of Hamilton Wingo LLP; defense counsel are David A. Johnson, Helen H. Emerson and Lauren Cox Vossen of Cowles & Thompson PC. The docket excerpts provided do not include the complaint, the state‑court petition, or the full removal pleading, so the factual allegations Ramirez asserts and any damages sought are not yet visible in the public docket excerpts supplied.

As filed, the case sits in diversity jurisdiction under cause code 28:1332; Texas premises‑liability law may be relevant depending on the complaint’s allegations. As a legal primer, one Texas decision summarizes premises‑liability elements: “To establish a premises liability claim under Texas law, Moreno must show that (1) Wal‑Mart had actual or constructive knowledge of some condition on the premises, (2) the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm, (3) Wal‑Mart did not exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the unreasonable risk of harm, and (4) Wal‑Mart's failure to use reasonable care proximately caused Moreno's injuries. See, e.g., LMB, Ltd. v. Moreno, 201 S.W.3d 686, 688 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam).”

Procedurally, the docket instructions require any required judge’s copy to be delivered within three business days of filing and remind non‑admitted attorneys to seek admission promptly. The case remains at its initial stage in Judge Pittman’s docket; the removal filing and clerk notes are the only entries recorded so far, and further filings, including the Notice of Removal attachment package and the plaintiff’s original petition, will be needed to report the incident allegations and the parties’ positions.