Moore et al v. Roper et al

Filing 21

ORDER directing Defendants to provide sufficient evidence by 5:00 p.m. on September 18, 2015 that the jurisdictional amount is in controversy. Response due by 9/18/2015. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 09/04/2015. (thb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

JERRY MOORE ANd
RACHEL MOORE,
Dl:int.iff<

*

v.

/-\t

11t--1)R

HEATHERT. ROPER, and THE
PROCTOR & GAMBLE COMPANY
and/or
THE WELLA CORPORATION,
THE PROCTOR & GAMBLE
and/ol
U. S. BUSINESS SERVICE COMPANY,
Individual
and/or A. B. C. that
D.Y1-h6rcl-1i

^

Dr^f

i I

Corporat i on (Foreign)
a/-mn:n\/

or

n.)i n.r R|s'1aSS

Same on May I,

tne

aS

20L2,

ORDER

This

cause

Defendant s
Colurnbia

removed
a.nnj- \r

trlarzonrh

f-irz^rri-

courts

^F. li^.t-all

f ^

'hanarrar

i r

F. 3d

r r ' 1 3,

omitted) .

'I

I-7q

i n r ^ r r r ir o
mrrr

r't I t-t-.

Upon review

ha

Ctr

of

a^rr-l-

n=

na . '/

200/I

the

-uri

Anne:ls-

record,

a^.lct
\/
::::_:_____t_i__

Iinfe-naI

the

AS

"f f leclera

I

irrrisdicrion
R'lzror

orrotation

Court

of

Court

sdiCtiOn.

crrhier-j- -mAf rFr

infn
l:ntzi

own initiative.

Superior

the

rl'Ve.s'tv

1.1

hy r r
!

<n^nfo

rL hso
|

from

r'\'rrq rFrt
t / v l J g 9 l i !

its

on

Court

action

this

instructed
are

the

comes before

cannot

,

'1'1'1
'

marks

discern

the

whether

jurisdictional

by

i'rri
Jur

e^i,.-t

i/1nrl

-Jv-eL

-^t'rt

^r

that

the

r.i r

at
of

v.

Kofter

107-86.4

'r'rarv

urru!rq!

CitV

to

L07-86.5
incfude,

oLher

Target

* 1 (M.D. Ffa.

, v '-r ^ n tv rs - \ 7 F r q \ / . I
J
r . Llv
r

requirement
608 F.3d

Moore's

Fedelal

Practice

(3d ed.

2010)).

II,

but,

are
irl

Corp.,

limited

Arr,.,1eir'\ri

a<

Augusta,

1s

\i

re

to

rav

/1n

the

revea-1

satisfied.

144,

754

"

(11th

107.Iatzl

S

to,

tql

forms

affidav

i Ls,

q-

Id.

n^d-cal

at

-.n-rAr-l

damages.

No. 3:12-cv-1086,

June 14, 2013).

rhat

the

OLher appropriate

not

of

mav

submitted

Inc.,

Plaza

that

nef enalants

F\zi.lFn.F

fvne

documenLation

ORDER ENTERED at

.

sufficient

2OtS

non-s\.{orn letters

controversy

. lUe J Uo qL ir tv tt n n c
n J!
U I
lJ

and

18,

Septernber

irrdrrmpn'

l

in

\Ysver!!Y

i.'\nc

Chewning v.

[] ,

/n,rnf i nrr 16

evidence

records,

J

amount

?nl nl

.le._:-^f

q

.1t l^ar

in

the

exceeds

provj de

o R D E R E Dc o

are

on

^m/_.'rrnl- iq

admissions

"iudicial

Pretka

p.m.

case

this

28 U.S.C. S 1332.

of

Defendants

5:00

in

controversy

requirement

AccordingJ y,
evidence

1n

amount

'1
54-56;

2A13 WL 3013864/ at

*L

'--f

day

September, 2015.

J. RANDAL HALL
TATES DISTRICT JUDGE
S O U T H E R ND I S T R I C T O F G E O R G ] A