Lucas v. Ford Motor Company
Plaintiff: Cedric Lucas
Defendant: Ford Motor Company
Case Number: 4:2012cv01207
Filed: May 7, 2012
Court: US District Court for the District of South Carolina
Office: Florence Office
County: Horry
Presiding Judge: R Bryan Harwell
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Jury Demanded By: Both
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on May 11, 2012. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
May 11, 2012 Filing 11 ***DOCUMENT E-MAILED #10 Order of Remand to Melanie Huggins-Ward, Clerk of Court, Horry County (hugginsm@horrycounty.org). True certified copy also mailed to the same at PO Box 677, Conway, SC 29528. (hcic, )
May 11, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ORDER OF REMAND. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 5/11/2012. (hcic, )
May 10, 2012 Filing 9 Letter from David C. Marshall. (Marshall, David)
May 10, 2012 Filing 8 JOINT STIPULATION by Ford Motor Company, Cedric Lucas. (Marshall, David)
May 8, 2012 Filing 6 TEXT SUA SPONTE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: The Defendant 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. District courts have original jurisdiction " 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). In the instant case, the Defendant bases federal jurisdiction upon diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 1332. However, the Plaintiff did not specify any monetary amount of damages or clearly allege the jurisdictional amount in the Complaint, and the Defendants notice of removal fails to allege facts adequate to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount. Thus, the amount in controversy is unclear, and this Court may lack diversity jurisdiction. Removal statutes are strictly construed against removal, and any doubts concerning the propriety of removal must be resolved in favor of retained state court jurisdiction. Marshall v. Manville Sales Corp., 6 F.3d 229, 232 (4th Cir. 1993). In addition, " [t]he party seeking removal bears the burden of demonstrating that removal jurisdiction is proper. " In Re Blackwater Security Consulting, LLC, 460 F.3d 576, 583 (4th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). This includes establishing compliance with the removal statute requirements. See Marler v. Amoco Oil Co., 793 F. Supp. 656, 658-59 (E.D.N.C. 1992). Courts must narrowly interpret removal jurisdiction because of the significant federalism concerns that are raised by removing proceedings from state court. Id. Thus, all doubts are resolved in favor of remand. See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941); see also Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chems. Co., Inc., 29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 1994). THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, not later than five calendar days from the filing of this Order, Defendant shall brief the Court and SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be remanded to the State court for the foregoing reasons. Plaintiff shall file a response not later than five calendar days thereafter and, in that response, include a clarification as to whether Plaintiff intended to pursue, at the time of filing the original complaint, damages in excess of the jurisdictional amount of $75,000. If Plaintiff did not intend to pursue damages adequate to satisfy the jurisdictional threshold at the time of filing and if Plaintiff stipulates to such limitation having a binding effect, the Court will remand this matter to state court. Signed by Honorable R. Bryan Harwell on 5/8/2012. (dsho, )
May 8, 2012 Filing 5 CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING ORDER. Rule 26(f) Conference Deadline 5/29/2012, 26(a) Initial Disclosures due by 6/12/2012, Rule 26 Report due by 6/12/2012, Motions to Amend Pleadings due by 8/6/2012, Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 9/4/2012, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 10/4/2012, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 10/4/2012, Discovery due by 12/3/2012, Motions due by 12/18/2012, Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures due by 3/4/2013, Jury Selection Deadline 5/6/2013, ADR Statement due by 1/19/2013, Mediation Due by 2/18/2013. Motions in limine must be filed at least three weeks prior to the date set for jury selection. Parties shall furnish the Court pretrial briefs seven (7) days prior to the date set for jury selection. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 5/8/2012. (hcic, )
May 7, 2012 Filing 4 ANSWER to Complaint (Notice of Removal) by Ford Motor Company. (Marshall, David) Modified on 5/8/2012 to correct event type. (hcic, )
May 7, 2012 Filing 3 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories with jury demand by Ford Motor Company.(prou, )
May 7, 2012 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Horry County Common Pleas, case number 2012-CP-26-2530. (Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0420-4054135), filed by Ford Motor Company. (Attachments: #1 State Court Pleadings)(prou, )

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the South Carolina District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Lucas v. Ford Motor Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Cedric Lucas
Represented By: Daniel Alan Hunnicutt
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Ford Motor Company
Represented By: Joseph Kenneth Carter, Jr
Represented By: David Christopher Marshall
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?