Jones et al v. Allura USA LLC et al

Filing 16

ORDER finding as moot 5 Motion to Dismiss; granting 12 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 David C Norton on January 8, 2021.(cdan, )

2:20-cv-03492-DCN

Date Filed 01/08/21

Entry Number 16

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
CLIFFORD JONES, JANE DOES 1–100,
and JOHN DOES 1–100

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ALLURA USA LLC, PLYCEM USA LLC )
d/b/a ALLURA, PLYCEM USA INC.,
)
JANE DOES 1–100, and JOHN DOES
)
1–100,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

No. 2:20-cv-3492-DCN
ORDER

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Clifford Jones’s (“Jones”) motion to
remand, ECF No. 12. Plaintiffs filed this negligence action in the Dorchester Court of
Common Pleas on June 19, 2020 against defendants Allura USA LLC, Plycem USA
LLC, Plycem USA Inc., Janes Does 1–100, and John Does 1-100 (collectively,
“defendants”). ECF No. 1-1, Compl. In their complaint, plaintiffs represented that the
unnamed Jane and John Doe defendants represented the then-unknown “subcontractors
and/or other entities involved in the design, development, marketing, construction, [et
cetera],” of plaintiffs’ properties. Compl. ¶ 9. On the basis of the court’s diversity
jurisdiction over the subject matter, defendants removed the action to this court on
September 30, 2020. ECF No. 1.
Now, Clifford asks the court to remand this matter to state court based on his
recent discovery that at least one of the Doe defendants is a citizen of South Carolina,
meaning that the court is bereft of diversity jurisdiction thus the constitutional authority
to hear this case. Defendants have informed the court that they do not contest Clifford’s
1

2:20-cv-03492-DCN

Date Filed 01/08/21

Entry Number 16

Page 2 of 2

request to remand. Therefore, the court grants the motion and remands this matter to
state court. Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 5, is moot.
For the foregoing reasons the court GRANTS the motion to remand, REMANDS
the action to the Dorchester Court of Common Pleas, and FINDS AS MOOT
defendants’ motion to dismiss.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

DAVID C. NORTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
January 8, 2021
Charleston, South Carolina

2