Townsend v. Wal-Mart Associates Inc et al
| Latasha Louise Townsend |
| William Odom and Wal-Mart Associates Inc |
| 4:2018cv02620 |
| September 25, 2018 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| R Bryan Harwell |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 9, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 ***DOCUMENT E-MAILED: True Certified copy of #10 Order on Motion to Remand to State Court emailed to Marlboro County Clerk of Court at jwilliams@marlboroclerkofcourt.com. Confirmation has been received and is attached. (lsut, ) |
Filing 10
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 the Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 10/09/2018. (lsut, )
|
| Filing 9 Consent MOTION to Remand to State Court by Wal-Mart Associates Inc. Response to Motion due by 10/16/2018. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Stipulation as to Damages)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel.(Boyd, Nashiba Dawntay) |
| Filing 7 SUA SPONTE TEXT ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: The 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. 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 Defendants base 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 ORDERED that, not later than five calendar days from the filing of this Order, Defendants 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. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiff's case. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 9/27/2018. (tmcb, ) |
| Filing 6 CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING ORDER. Rule 26(f) Conference Deadline 10/17/2018, 26(a) Initial Disclosures due by 10/31/2018, Rule 26 Report due by 10/31/2018, Motions to Amend Pleadings due by 12/27/2018, Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 1/25/2019, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 2/25/2019, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 2/25/2019, Discovery due by 4/25/2019, Motions due by 5/13/2019, Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures due by 7/24/2019, ADR Statement due by 6/9/2019, Mediation Due by 7/9/2019.Motions in limine must be filed at least three weeks prior to date set for jury selection. Responses to motions in limine shall be filed within seven (7) days after the motion is filed. Parties shall furnish the Court pretrial briefs seven (7) days prior to the date set for jury selection. This case is subject to being called for jury selection and/or trial on or after 09/03/2019. Signed by the Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 09/27/2018. (lsut, ) |
| Filing 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by William Odom, Wal-Mart Associates Inc. Re: #1 Notice of Removal, #3 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories, #4 Answer to Complaint Notice of Removal. (lsut, ) |
| Filing 4 ANSWER to Complaint (Notice of Removal) by William Odom, Wal-Mart Associates Inc. (lsut, ) |
| Filing 3 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by William Odom, Wal-Mart Associates Inc. (lsut, ) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Marlboro County Court of Common Pleas, case number 2018-CP-34-00164 (Filing fee $400 receipt number 0420-8019338), filed by William Odom, Wal-Mart Associates Inc. (Attachments: #1 State Court Documents)(lsut, ) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
