Chavis v. Willhite Seed Inc et al
Filing
71
ORDER AND OPINION granting 62 Motion to Remand to State Court. Clerk's Notice: Attorneys are responsible for supplementing the State Record with all documents filed in Federal Court. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 12/4/2014.(asni, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Patsy S. Chavis,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
Willhite Seed, Inc.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-03060-JMC
ORDER AND OPINION
This matter is before the court pursuant to Plaintiff Patsy S. Chavis’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion
to Remand the case to the Barnwell County (South Carolina) Court of Common Pleas. (ECF No.
62.) Defendant Willhite Seed, Inc. (“Defendant”), opposes Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and
asks the court to retain jurisdiction. (ECF No. 68.) For the reasons set forth below, the court
GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.
I.
RELEVANT BACKGROUND OF PENDING MOTION
Plaintiff alleges that she suffered substantial damages in the spring of 2012, when
Defendant sold her “Big Crimson” watermelon seeds that “did not produce commercially
acceptable watermelons; that the watermelons produced from this seed were rotten and did not
meet the demands and expectations of the Plaintiff’s customers who expected Big Crimson
watermelons.” (ECF No. 1-1 at 5 ¶ 5, 6 ¶ 7.) On September 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed an action
for damages against Defendant in the Court of Common Pleas of Barnwell County, South
Carolina, alleging claims for breach of warranty, negligence, strict liability, violation of the
South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 39-5-10 to 560 (2013), and
1
violation of South Carolina seed certification laws.1 (ECF No. 1-1 at 5–7.) For jurisdictional
purposes, Plaintiff alleged that she is a citizen of the State of South Carolina; and Defendant is a
corporation organized under the laws of a state other than the State of South Carolina.2 (ECF
No. 1-1 at 5 ¶¶ 1, 2.) Plaintiff did not specify an amount of damages in the Complaint, but
prayed “for an award of actual and punitive damages, cost and attorney’s fees.” (Id. at 8.)
On October 17, 2014, Defendant filed an Amended Notice of Removal asserting that the
court possessed jurisdiction over the matter “because complete diversity of citizenship exists
between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant[] and the amount in the controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional amount required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332.”3 (ECF No. 61 at 2 ¶ 7.) Thereafter, on
October 20, 2014, Plaintiff moved the court to remand the matter to state court on the basis “that
the amount in controversy in this matter does not exceed $75,000.00, and Plaintiff so stipulates
that the sum is not met, and . . . this matter . . . does not meet the jurisdictional requirement.”
(ECF No. 62.) On November 6, 2014, Defendant filed opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to
Remand, to which Plaintiff filed a Reply in Support of the Motion to Remand on November 17,
2014. (ECF Nos. 68, 69.)
1
Plaintiff also sued the South Carolina Department of Agriculture (“SCDA”) and the South
Carolina Seed Arbitration Committee (“SCSAC”). In addition to the causes of action abovementioned, Plaintiff alleged a claim solely against the SCDA and SCSAC for violation of her
Due Process Rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (See
ECF No. 1-1 at 7 ¶ 21.) The court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment of SCDA and
SCSAC on September 22, 2014, and dismissed these two defendants and the claims against them
from the matter. (ECF No. 47.)
2
Plaintiff did not specify a state of incorporation for Defendant in the Complaint. (See ECF No.
1-1 at 5 ¶ 2.) In its Answer, Defendant denied that it was incorporated in the State of South
Carolina. (ECF No. 8 at 1 ¶ 4.)
3
SCDA and SCSAC originally removed the action to this court on November 11, 2013, based on
federal question jurisdiction. (See ECF No. 1 at 2 ¶ 7.)
2
II.
A.
LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS
Removing Actions from State Court by way of Diversity Jurisdiction
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. A defendant is permitted to remove a
case to federal court if the court would have had original jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(a). A federal district court has “original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter
in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is
between - (1) citizens of different States; . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In cases in which the
district court’s jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, the party invoking federal
jurisdiction has the burden of proving the jurisdictional requirements for diversity jurisdiction.
See Strawn v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 530 F.3d 293, 298 (4th Cir. 2008) (holding that in
removing case based on diversity jurisdiction, party invoking federal jurisdiction must allege
same in notice of removal and, when challenged, demonstrate basis for jurisdiction). Because
federal courts are forums of limited jurisdiction, any doubt as to whether a case belongs in
federal or state court should be resolved in favor of state court. See Auto Ins. Agency, Inc. v.
Interstate Agency, Inc., 525 F. Supp. 1104, 1106 (D.S.C. 1981) (citations omitted).
Section 1332 requires complete diversity between all parties. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7
U.S. 267, 267 (1806). Complete diversity requires that “no party shares common citizenship
with any party on the other side.” Mayes v. Rapoport, 198 F.3d 457, 461 (4th Cir. 1999).
In determining the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction, the court must
examine the complaint at the time of removal. Thompson v. Victoria Fire & Casualty Co., 32 F.
Supp. 2d 847, 848 (D.S.C. 1999) (citing St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S.
283, 292 (1938)). “Additionally, this court has made clear that, ordinarily, the sum claimed by a
plaintiff in her complaint determines the jurisdictional amount, and a plaintiff may plead less
3
than the jurisdictional amount to avoid federal jurisdiction.” Phillips v. Whirlpool Corp., 351 F.
Supp. 2d 458, 461 (D.S.C. 2005) (citing, e.g., St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co., 303 U.S. at 294 (“If
[the plaintiff] does not desire to try his case in the federal court he may resort to the expedient of
suing for less than the jurisdictional amount, and though he would be justly entitled to more, the
defendant cannot remove.”)) (internal citations omitted).
B.
The Court’s Review
Plaintiff moves to remand this matter to state court on the basis that the amount in
controversy does not exceed $75,000.00. (ECF No. 62.) Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s Motion
to Remand arguing that this case is appropriately in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
Defendant cites to St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. and other cases to support its position that
Plaintiff cannot divest the court of jurisdiction by amending the amount sought below the
jurisdictional requirement. (ECF No. 68 at 2–5.)
Plaintiff attached to her Reply a stipulation as
to damages, wherein her attorney expressly states that (1) the entire amount of damages being
sought does not exceed $75,000.00 and (2) Plaintiff will not seek to recover any verdict
exceeding the sum of $74,999.00. (ECF No. 69-1 at 1 ¶ 3, 2 ¶ 4.)
Upon review, the court notes that Plaintiff did not specify an amount of damages in her
complaint. (See ECF No. 1-1 at 8.) Therefore, the court interprets Plaintiff’s Stipulation as to
Damages as a clarification of the amount of damages she is seeking. See, e.g., Carter v.
Bridgestone Americas, Inc., C/A No. 2:13-CV-00287-PMD, 2013 WL 3946233, at *3 (D.S.C.
July 31, 2013) (“Defendant concedes that ‘Plaintiff does not specify an amount of damages in
her Complaint.’ (Internal citation omitted.) The Court interprets Plaintiff’s statements in her
notarized affidavit as to the amount in controversy as a stipulation, clarifying that the total
amount of damages sought by her Complaint is not more than $60,000.000.”); Tommie v. Orkin,
4
Inc., C/A No. 8:09-1225-HMH, 2009 WL 2148101, at *2 (D.S.C. July 15, 2009) (“The
complaint requests an unspecified amount of damages. The court interprets Tommie’s statement
in the motion as to the amount in controversy as a stipulation that she cannot recover a total
amount of actual and punitive damages exceeding the sum of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest
and costs.”); Ferguson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 94-2696, 1994 WL 653479, at *2 (D.S.C.
Nov. 15, 1994) (remanding case when the plaintiff alleged an unspecified amount of damages
and clarified the amount of damages sought was below the jurisdictional amount by filing a postremoval stipulation); Gwyn v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 955 F. Supp. 44, 46 (M.D.N.C.1997) (“A
post-removal stipulation or amendment of the complaint to allege damages below the
jurisdictional amount will not destroy federal jurisdiction once it has attached. However, when
facing indeterminate claims, . . . the court may consider a stipulation filed by the plaintiff that the
claim does not exceed” the jurisdictional amount.) (Internal citation and quotation marks
omitted). Therefore, based on the aforementioned interpretation, the court finds that the cases
cited by Defendant are not controlling in this case. Accordingly, the court accepts Plaintiff’s
Stipulation as to Damages that the total amount of damages she is seeking is less than $75,000.00
and remands the matter to state court because the jurisdictional threshold for diversity
jurisdiction does not exist in this case.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Remand of Plaintiff
Patsy S. Chavis and REMANDS this action to the Court of Common Pleas of Barnwell County,
South Carolina for further proceedings. (ECF No. 62.) The remaining pending motions on the
court’s docket filed by Defendant for summary judgment and in limine will be properly
considered by the Barnwell County (South Carolina) Court of Common Pleas. (See ECF Nos.
5
27, 38, 54, 55.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
December 4, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?