Nichol v. DePuy Spine Inc

Filing 4

OPINION and ORDER REMANDING this case sua sponte to the Greenville County Court of Common Pleas for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in Federal Court. The Plaintiff is barred from recovering a total amount of damages exceeding 74,999.00, exclusive of interest and costs. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 12/18/12. (sfla, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION

Joe Nichol,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DePuy Spine, Inc.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 6:12-3541-HMH

OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the court on sua sponte review to determine if the requirements of
subject matter jurisdiction have been satisfied. 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.”).
The Defendant removed this action alleging that the requirements for diversity
jurisdiction have been satisfied under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. However, after review of the
complaint, the amount in controversy does not satisfy the jurisdictional amount of more than
$75,000.00.
“In determining the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction, the court
must examine the complaint at the time of removal.” Chavis v. Fid. Warranty Servs., Inc., 415
F. Supp. 2d 620, 626 (D.S.C. 2006). “[T]he status of the case as disclosed by the plaintiff’s
complaint is controlling in the case of a removal . . . .” St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab
Co., 303 U.S. 283, 291 (1938). “It is well established that ‘the plaintiff is the master of his

complaint.’” Chavis, 415 F. Supp. 2d at 627 (quoting Custer v. Sweeney, 89 F.3d 1156, 1165
(4th Cir. 1996)). “As a general rule, the sum claimed by a plaintiff in his complaint determines
the jurisdictional amount, and a plaintiff may plead less than the jurisdictional amount to avoid
federal jurisdiction.” Jones v. Allstate Ins. Co., 258 F. Supp. 2d 424, 427 (D.S.C. 2003) (citing
St. Paul Mercury Indem., 303 U.S. at 294 (1938)). Rule 8(a)(3) of the South Carolina Rules of
Civil Procedure provides that “a party may plead that the total amount in controversy shall not
exceed a stated sum which shall limit the claim for all purposes.” S.C. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a)(3). The
complaint specifically provides that “[t]he sums in controversy are less than $75,000 and shall
not exceed $74,999.” (Compl. ¶ 27, ECF No. 1-1.)
Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff’s complaint plainly provides a specific limitation
on damages and the amount in controversy is less than $75,000.00. The court declines “to adopt
an approach under which the court undertakes its own independent review of the amount in
controversy despite a specific limitation on damages in the plaintiff's complaint.” Jones, 258 F.
Supp. 2d at 427 n. 2. Therefore, the requirements for diversity jurisdiction have not been met.
Because the court is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court remands the case to the state
court.
It is therefore
ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Greenville
County, South Carolina. The court instructs the Clerk of Court to remand this case to the Court
of Common Pleas of Greenville County, South Carolina. Furthermore, the Plaintiff is barred
from recovering a total amount of damages exceeding seventy-four thousand nine hundred
ninety-nine dollars ($74,999.00), exclusive of interest and costs, for any claims.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
December 18, 2012

3