Maid et al v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Co
| John E Maid and Julie A Maid |
| United Property & Casualty Insurance Co |
| 4:2021cv02634 |
| August 17, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Joseph Dawson |
| R Bryan Harwell |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 22, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 14 Joint Rule 26 Outline of Discovery Plan by United Property & Casualty Insurance Co.(LaFave, Mary) |
| Filing 13 Joint Rule 26(f) Report by United Property & Casualty Insurance Co. (Attachments: #1 LR 26.03 Answers)(LaFave, Mary) |
| Filing 12 Case Reassigned to Judge Honorable Joseph Dawson, III. Judge Chief Judge R Bryan Harwell no longer assigned to the case. (glev, ) |
| Filing 10 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by John E Maid, Julie A Maid.(Willard, Danny) |
Filing 9
TEXT ORDER: Having reviewed the parties' stipulation in response to the Court's TEXT SUA SPONTE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, the Court is satisfied that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount and it has diversity jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332. Signed by Chief Judge R Bryan Harwell on 8/23/2021. (tmcb, )
|
| Filing 8 STIPULATION re #1 Notice of Removal, by United Property & Casualty Insurance Co. (LaFave, Mary) |
|
Filing 6
SUA SPONTE TEXT 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 Defendant's 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, 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. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiff's case. Signed by Chief Judge R Bryan Harwell on 8/18/2021. (tmcb, )
|
|
Filing 5
CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING ORDER. Rule 26(f) Conference Deadline 9/7/2021, 26(a) Initial Disclosures due by 9/21/2021, Rule 26 Report due by 9/21/2021, Motions to Amend Pleadings due by 11/15/2021, Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 12/15/2021, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 1/14/2022, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 1/14/2022, Discovery due by 3/14/2022, Motions due by 3/29/2022, Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures due by 5/12/2022, ADR Statement due by 4/27/2022, Mediation Due by 3/28/2022. Motions in limine must be filed at least three weeks prior to the 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 7/7/2022. Signed by Chief Judge R Bryan Harwell on 8/17/2021. (hcic, )
|
| Filing 4 ANSWER to Complaint (Notice of Removal) by United Property & Casualty Insurance Co. (hcic, ) |
| Filing 3 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories with jury demand by United Property & Casualty Insurance Co. (hcic, ) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Horry County Court of Common Pleas, case number 2021-CP-26-04428 (filing fee $402 receipt number 0420-10021254), filed by United Property & Casualty Insurance Co. (Attachments: #1 State Court Documents, #2 State Court Proof of Service)(hcic, ) |
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.
