Build on Your Land, LLC v. Keystone Homes, Inc.

Filing 37

ORDER granting 14 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 10/23/2024. Clerk's Notice: Attorneys are responsible for supplementing the State Record with all documents filed in Federal Court. (cbru, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
BUILD ON YOUR LAND, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
KEYSTONE HOMES, INC.,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No.: 3:24-3841-MGL

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Build on Your Land, LLC (BOYL) brought this declaratory judgment action

against Defendant Keystone Homes, Inc. (Keystone) in the Lexington County Court of Common
Pleas. Keystone subsequently removed the case to this Court, claiming the Court has jurisdiction
over the matter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Pending before the Court is BOYL’s motion to remand. Having considered the motion,
the response, the record, and the applicable law, it is the judgment of the Court BOYL’s motion to
remand will be granted.

II.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
BOYL is a citizen of South Carolina, and Keystone is a citizen of Georgia. Both entities

are in the business of constructing homes throughout South Carolina and Georgia.

In 2013, Keystone began using “BUILD ON YOUR LAND by Keystone Homes” to
advertise its residential home construction services. Keystone’s Response at 1. BOYL alleges
Keystone owns neither a federally or state registered trademark or service mark on the phrase
“BUILD ON YOUR LAND.” Complaint ¶ 15–18.
In 2023, Keystone became aware BOYL was also using “BUILD ON YOUR LAND” to
advertise its construction services. Answer ¶ 53. Keystone thereafter sent BOYL a cease-anddesist letter, asserting it had “an exclusive trademark or service mark in South Carolina which
arose out of the Lanham Act and associated case law, as well as the common law of [South
Carolina].” Complaint ¶ 20.
BOYL sought declaratory judgment in state court, asking the court to declare, first, “[t]he
phrase ‘[B]uild [O]n [Y]our [L]and,’ . . . is not a ‘mark’ entitled to any sort of exclusive use, nor
is it eligible for registration.” Id. ¶ 27. And, second, “BOYL is entitled to carry on its business
under its registered corporate name, including but not limited to using the phrase ‘Build On Your
Land’ in its advertising and marketing campaigns.” Id.
Subsequently, Keystone removed the case to this Court. After BOYL filed its motion to
remand, Keystone responded, but BOYL failed to reply. The Court, having been fully briefed on
the relevant issues, will now adjudicate the motion.

III.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. “The district courts shall have 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 . . . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a)(1).

2

“Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress,” defendants may remove to
federal court “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United
States have original jurisdiction.” Id. § 1441(a).
“Because removal jurisdiction raises significant federalism concerns, [the Court] must
strictly construe removal jurisdiction. If federal jurisdiction is doubtful, a remand is necessary.”
Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chem. Co., 29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).
“The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is placed upon the party seeking removal.” Id.
(citing Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92 (1921)).
“When a plaintiff’s complaint leave[s] the amount of damages unspecified, the defendant
must provide evidence to show what the stakes of litigation are given the plaintiff’s actual
demands.” Scott v. Cricket Commc’ns, LLC, 865 F.3d 189, 194 (4th Cir. 2017).
Under Fourth Circuit law, “it is settled that the test for determining the amount in
controversy in a diversity proceeding is ‘the pecuniary result to either party which [a] judgment
would produce.’” Dixon v. Edwards, 290 F.3d 699, 710 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Gov’t Emps. Ins.
Co. v. Lally, 327 F.2d 568, 569 (4th Cir. 1964)).

IV.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
According to the record, the parties are citizens of different states. Thus, the critical

determination before the Court is whether removal was proper based on the amount in controversy.
BOYL argues diversity jurisdiction over this matter is improper because the amount in
controversy is less than $75,000. Specifically, BOYL asserts “[n]owhere in the pleadings or in the
record is there a reference to any specific contracts to be affirmed or invalidated, any business

3

opportunities lost, or any services that [Keystone] seeks to bar [BOYL] from providing.” BOYL’s
Motion at 4.
Keystone, the party burdened with establishing federal jurisdiction, however, argues the
pecuniary result of the declaratory judgment sought by BOYL “substantially” exceeds $75,000.
Keystone’s Response at 7. Although Keystone states it “has only begun to investigate the
infringement of its [asserted] trademark by BOYL,” Keystone claims it “is aware of actual
confusion experienced by potential customers, as asserted in its counterclaims.” Id.
For instance, according to Keystone, “[i]n early May, 2024, . . . [it] received two telephone
calls from consumers seemingly looking for BOYL [who] were confused.”

Answer ¶ 53.

Therefore, Keystone contends, the Court may “reasonably estimate[], infer[], and deduce[]”
Keystone has lost “job opportunities or actual contracts . . . due to confusion created by BOYL’s
use of BUILD ON YOUR OWN LAND[] and that such [opportunities or contracts] have resulted
in a loss . . . of at least $75,000 in profits alone.” Keystone’s Response at 8.
“In many removal cases, a defendant’s allegations rely to some extent on reasonable
estimates, inferences, and deductions.” Scott, 865 F.3d at 196. But, Keystone’s calculation of
damages in this case is far too attenuated. Keystone has failed to demonstrate how the two
telephone calls actually resulted in lost business profits exceeding $75,000. Moreover, there is
insufficient evidence establishing the confusion of these callers caused them to forego contracting
with Keystone, and Keystone has neglected to show how a ruling from this Court would affect its
purported loss of profits from such callers.
As this Court has previously recognized, the Court’s “jurisdiction cannot rest upon the
metaphysical possibility that the jurisdictional amount may or may not be met now or at some
point in the future.” Martinez v. Sarratt, No. 3:20-cv-0744-MGL, 2020 WL 1892357, at *6

4

(D.S.C. Apr. 16, 2020). Put simply, the Court is unable to determine the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000.
For all the reasons stated above, the Court concludes federal jurisdiction in this case is
“doubtful” such that the Court must remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Mulcahey, 29
F.3d at 151.

V.

CONCLUSION
It is therefore the judgment of the Court BOYL’s motion to remand is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 23rd day of October 2024, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5