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, )

Download PDF
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

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?