Adams v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida LLC et al
Filing
8
OPINION AND ORDER granting 7 Motion to Remand Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 3/22/2018.(abuc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Tina W. Adams,
Plaintiff,
v.
Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC,
Defendants.
___________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 8:18-cv-00646-DCC
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Consent Motion to Remand to State Court. ECF No. 7.
Plaintiff originally filed this action in the Greenwood County Court of Common Pleas. ECF No. 1.
Defendants timely removed the action to this Court on March 8, 2018. 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, the parties agree that the amount in controversy is less than the statutory requirement.
ECF No. 7. Accordingly, 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.
CONCLUSION
Wherefore, based upon the foregoing, the Consent Motion to Remand to State Court is
GRANTED, this case is REMANDED to the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas for the Eighth
Judicial Circuit in Greenwood County.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
March 22, 2018
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?