Miller v. Murphy Oil USA 8517
Filing
15
OPINION AND ORDER granting 9 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 Mary G Lewis on 9/12/2013.(prou, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Lesa A. Miller,
)
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
Murphy Oil USA #8517,
)
)
Defendant. )
______________________________
Civil Action No.:4:13-880-MGL
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's motion to remand. (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff
Lesa A. Miller (“Plaintiff”) originally filed suit in the Court of Common Pleas of Dillon
County, South Carolina. The complaint alleges claims for negligence and premises liability
arising from a slip and fall accident that occurred on Defendant’s premises on July 21,
2012. On April 2, 2013, Defendant removed the case to federal court on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The complaint alleges an unspecified amount
of damages sought. In the motion to remand, Plaintiff contends inter alia that this case
should be remanded because Defendants are unable to demonstrate that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. (ECF No. 9 at 3). Defendant opposes the motion and
argues that Plaintiff has not affirmatively asserted that her damages are not more than
$74,999.99, inclusive of punitive damages. (ECF No. 14).
Without a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, the court must remand the
case to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it
appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be
remanded.”).
In Tennis v. Orange Lake County Club, Inc., No. 4:10–cv–01186–RBH,
2010 WL 3610244, at *1–2 (D.S.C. Sept.14, 2010), the court found it appropriate to
consider plaintiff's post-removal clarification stipulating her claim would be limited to no
more than $75,000, found the stipulation deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction,
and remanded the matter to state court. Id. (citing Tommie v. Orkin, Inc., No.
8:09–1225–HMH, 2009 WL 2148101, at *1–2 (D.S.C. July 15, 2009) (“[A] post-removal
stipulation that damages will not exceed the jurisdictional minimum can be considered a
clarification of an ambiguous complaint, rather than a post-removal amendment of the
plaintiff’s complaint.”)).
Similarly, in this matter, Plaintiff’s post-removal stipulation is permissible and should
be given effect, making it clear that Plaintiff will not and cannot recover damages in excess
of the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold. See Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 112 (4th
Cir.1995) (noting when a plaintiff “has alleged only a small amount of damages or it is
otherwise obvious that the jurisdictional amount under § 1332(a) cannot be satisfied, the
court must dismiss the case outright for lack of jurisdiction.”). Accordingly, the court is
without subject matter jurisdiction and remands the case to the state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
September 12, 2013
Spartanburg, 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?