Clark v. New York Marine and General Insurance Company
Filing
20
ORDER granting 17 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 Donald C Coggins, Jr on 2/15/2018.(abuc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Isaac Clark, d/b/a Clark Towing,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
New York Marine and General Insurance
)
Company,
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
Case No. 3:17-cv-01155-DCC
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to State Court. ECF No. 17.
Plaintiff states that Defendant consents to the Motion and Defendant has failed to respond. Plaintiff
originally filed this action in the Sumter County Court of Common Pleas. ECF No. 1. Defendants
timely removed the action to this Court on May 3, 2017. Id. The Motion is ripe for review.
APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
Remand of a case to state court following removal is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and
(d). “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction is placed on the party seeking removal.” Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chems. Co.,
29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 1994) (citing Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92 (1921)).
“Because removal jurisdiction raises significant federalism concerns,” courts “must strictly construe
removal jurisdiction.” Id. at 151 (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941)).
Thus, remand is necessary if federal jurisdiction is doubtful. Id. (citing In re Business Men’s Assur.
Co. of Am., 992 F.2d 181, 183 (8th Cir. 1993); Cheshire v. Coca-Cola Bottling Affiliated, Inc., 758
F. Supp. 1098, 1102 (D.S.C. 1990)).
Defendant filed the Notice of Removal alleging jurisdiction pursuant to the diveristy statute.
ECF No. 1. A plaintiff may file a state law claim in a federal court under the diversity statute, 28
U.S.C. § 1332, if that statute’s requirements are satisfied. See Cent. W. Va. Energy Co. v. Mountain
State Carbon, LLC, 636 F.3d 101, 103 (4th Cir. 2011). With the exception of certain class actions,
the diversity statute requires complete diversity of parties and an amount in controversy in excess
of $75,000. See id.; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Complete diversity of parties in a case means that the
citizenship of every plaintiff must be different from the citizenship of every defendant. Cent. W. Va.
Energy Co., 636 F.3d at 103.
Here, Plaintiff states that the amount in controversy is less than the statutory requirement.
ECF No. 17 at 2. Defendant does not oppose this contention. The Amended Complaint filed in the
Sumter County Court of Common Pleas does not state an amount in controversy and the Notice of
Removal argues that the amount in controversy is more than $75,000 without any accompanying
documentation. ECF Nos. 1 at 2; 1-1 at 1–3. It appears that the parties now agree that the amount
in controversy is less than the statutory amount and there is no evidence to the contrary. Therefore,
this Court has no jurisdiction due to the diversity of the parties; thus, this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over this action and remand is appropriate.1
The Court declines to address Plaintiff’s argument that there is no diversity of
citizenship of the parties. See ECF No. 17 at 3. The diversity statute requires complete
diversity of parties and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000. Because the
amount is controversy is less than the statutory requirement, it is unnecessary to reach
whether there is complete diversity of parties.
1
2
CONCLUSION
Wherefore, based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to State Court is
GRANTED, this case is REMANDED to the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas for the Third
Judicial Circuit in Sumter County.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
February 15, 2018
Spartanburg, South Carolina
3
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?