Home Depot Personal-Injury Lawsuit By Brian Ervin Removed To Federal Court

A personal-injury action filed by plaintiff Brian Dale Ervin was removed from Tulare County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California after a notice of removal was filed Feb. 2, 2026. The federal docket lists the case as Ervin v. The Home Depot, Inc., et al, under case number 1:26-cv-00859 and assigns it to Judge Helena M Barch-Kuchta.

The nature-of-suit label on the federal docket reads “360 Torts - Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury” and the cause is listed as “28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury.” The state court origin is recorded as Tulare County Superior Court, case number VCU317630. The docket entry shown in the court record states: “NOTICE of REMOVAL from Tulare County Superior Court, case number VCU317630 by Brian Dale Ervin. (Filing fee $ 405, receipt number ACAEDC-12842840)(Tolson, Zachary) Related: [-]” The filing was timestamped at 1:05 PM, and the federal docket notes “Att: 1 Civil Cover Sheet.”

Parties named in the federal filing include plaintiff Brian Dale Ervin, represented by Agnesa Manucharyan of Maison Law, Aplc; defendants The Home Depot, Inc., represented by Stefania Messina and Zachary S. Tolson of Goodman Neuman Hamilton LLP; and a co-defendant listed as Veronica Tapia. The docket snapshot was last checked at 2:03 PM PST the same day the removal was filed.

The public docket excerpt does not include the underlying state-court complaint, a corporate disclosure statement, or any scheduling orders, so the factual allegations and damages sought have not been made available through the materials shown. Reporters and litigants will need to pull the full Notice of Removal, attached civil cover sheet and the Tulare County complaint on PACER or the state-court docket to confirm the legal grounds for federal jurisdiction and the details of the injury claim.

As background on removal doctrine, separate legal commentary involving a different Home Depot removal dispute has highlighted tension over when defendants can invoke the Class Action Fairness Act. That analysis observed, “Home Depot argued that removal was proper under CAFA, which allows ‘any defendant’ to remove a covered class action,” and warned that a majority view limiting removal to an “original defendant” could be “somewhat stunning in breadth.”

For Home Depot employees and store-level managers, the move to federal court can change how quickly discovery proceeds, who handles depositions, and how corporate safety practices are scrutinized in litigation. The roster of defense counsel and the federal judge assignment are now public; the next steps will include filing of the full removal packet, any motion to remand, and scheduling orders that set deadlines for answers and discovery.

This case will be followed for the complaint details and any immediate motions; those documents will determine whether the dispute raises broader questions about store safety, training or contractor practices that could matter to workers across Home Depot locations.