Flowers Ministries Inc et al v. Hines et al
ORDER denying 8 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by the Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 7/27/2017. (hcic, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Flowers Ministries, Inc., a non-profit
organization charted in South Carolina;
J. L. Flowers, President; Tonya Holmes;
Lisa Allen; Fernando Camacho; Elizabeth
Mosley; Valerie Collins; and Lonzell
Mayor Gloria Hine; Aldermen Coleman
Cannon, Sr.; John H. Segars; Carolyn
Bruce; Bryant Gardner; John M. Milling;
Elaine Reed; and City Manager Howard
Garland all in their official capacities,
Civil Docket No.: 4:17-CV-00868-RBH
Pending before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand this case to the South Carolina Court
of Common Pleas for Darlington County. The Court has carefully reviewed the motion, memoranda
of counsel, and the record in the case. For the reasons set forth below, the court denies Plaintiffs’
Motion to Remand.1
I. Background Facts and Procedural History
Plaintiffs are members of Flowers Ministries, Inc., the corporate plaintiff in this lawsuit,
operating as a church in South Carolina. Defendants appear to be city officials or employees in the City
of Darlington, State of South Carolina. Plaintiffs allege these officials/employees violated their First
Amendment rights and cut off utilities, alleged trespass against church members, and refused to allow
Under Local Rule 7.08, “[h]earings on motions may be ordered by the Court in its discretion. Unless so ordered,
motions may be determined without a hearing.”
permits and contractors to help Flowers Ministries, Inc. operate in Darlington. On February 17, 2017,
this action was initiated in state court alleging causes of action for denial of First Amendment rights,
abuse of process, and intentional actions to punish church leaders and members. [ECF #1-1]. The
summons and complaint were served on Defendants on or about March 10, 2017. Defendants filed a
notice of removal to federal court on April 3, 2017, on the basis of the federal question doctrine
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, arguing that Plaintiffs allege a violation of their First Amendment rights
under the Constitution of the United States. Defendants also argue that this Court has supplemental
jurisdiction over any perceived state court claims asserted by Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
On April 20, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand, ostensibly on the basis that the single
federal issue in this case (violation of First Amendment rights) is premised upon the alleged illegal
actions of the Defendants, and Plaintiffs argue these actions are governed exclusively under state law.
Defendants filed a reply on May 3, 2017, contending that removal is proper because the issues raised
in the Complaint rest invoke federal question doctrine jurisdiction.
II. Standard of Review
The party seeking to remove a case to federal court has the burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction. Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chem. Co., Inc, 29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 1994).
Therefore, Defendants bears the burden in this instance. “Because removal jurisdiction raises
significant federalism concerns, [the court] must strictly construe removal jurisdiction.” Id. (citing
Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941)). “If federal jurisdiction is doubtful, a
remand is necessary.” Mulcahey, 29 F.3d at 151. The removing party also bears the burden of showing
compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Andrews v. Daughtry, 994 F.Supp.2d 728, 732 (M.D.N.C.
2014). A defendant has not complied with removal procedure where he does not remove the case in
a timely fashion. Cades v. H. & R. Block, Inc., 43 F.3d 869, 873 (4th Cir. 1994). “A defect in removal
procedure renders a case improperly removed.” Link Telecommunications, Inc. v. Sapperstein, 119
F.Supp.2d 536, 542 (D. Md. 2000) (citing Huffman v. Saul Holdings Ltd. Partnership, 194 F.3d 1072,
1076 (10th Cir. 1999)).
Defendants removed this case from state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. Under
§ 1441(a), a defendant is permitted to remove a case to federal court if the court would have had
original jurisdiction over the matter. Defendants base federal jurisdiction upon the fact that the
complaint involves a federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1334,2 as Plaintiffs allege
Defendants have denied them their First Amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States.
Defendants also assert that this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over any perceived state court
claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. There appears to be no issue as to whether the case was removed
in a timely manner.
Instead, Plaintiffs contend that the alleged illegal actions of Defendants are governed exclusively
by state law. However, within Plaintiffs’ Complaint, the first cause of action is “Denial of First
Amendment Rights” and in their brief, Plaintiffs provide a brief analysis of the history of the First
Amendment free speech cases and religious freedom cases to argue that Defendants were punishing
these Plaintiffs for exercising their First Amendment rights. In fact, Plaintiffs state: “[a]ll the actions
taken by the County Fire Marshall on property located in the city limits were actions beyond his
authority and in clear violation of the First Amendment Rights of the church and its members.” [ECF
28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides district courts should have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the
Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 1334 concerns bankruptcy cases and proceedings which does not apply here.
#8-1, p. 7]. Plaintiffs do not otherwise provide a basis for finding that the issues raised in the
Complaint center on purely state law issues or concerns. As Defendants provide in their reply,
Plaintiffs assert that Defendants discriminated against them in violation of the First Amendment for the
free practice or religion by taking allegedly discriminatory actions in enforcing certain city and county
building codes. [ECF #10, p. 2]. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claims alleging a violation of their First
Amendment rights are issues involving a federal question, and therefore removal to federal court is
For the reasons stated above, this court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand. [ECF #8].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Florence, South Carolina
July 27, 2017
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Court Judge
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?