Daigle v. Lowe's Home Centers LLC
| Thomas Daigle |
| Lowe's Home Centers LLC |
| 4:2022cv04514 |
| December 14, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| R Bryan Harwell |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 26, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 18
FIRST CONSENT AMENDED CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING ORDER: Motions to Amend Pleadings due by 6/19/2023, Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 7/19/2023, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 8/21/2023, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 8/21/2023, Discovery due by 10/18/2023, Motions due by 11/2/2023, Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures due by 12/19/2023, ADR Statement due by 11/4/2023, Mediation Due by 12/4/2023. 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 1/31/2024. Signed by Chief Judge R Bryan Harwell on 1/26/2023. (hcic, )
|
| Filing 17 DELETION OF DOCKET ENTRY NUMBER 14. Reason: At request of filer. Corrected Filing Document Number #15 . (hcic, ) |
| Filing 16 Local Rule 26.03 Answers to Interrogatories by Thomas Daigle.(Austin, Sarah) |
| Filing 15 Local Rule 26.03 Answers to Interrogatories by Lowe's Home Centers LLC.(Melling, Andrew) |
| Filing 13 Joint Rule 26 Outline of Discovery Plan by Lowe's Home Centers LLC.(Melling, Andrew) |
| Filing 12 Joint Rule 26(f) Report by Lowe's Home Centers LLC. (Melling, Andrew) Modified on 1/25/2023 to remove proposed order (hcic, ). |
| Filing 11 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Thomas Daigle.(Austin, Sarah) |
|
Filing 10
TEXT ORDER denying, without prejudice, Plaintiff's #9 motion to remand. The purpose of the Sua Sponte Text Order to Show Cause was to prompt Plaintiff to "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." For the Court to remand the case under the present circumstances, Plaintiff would need to enter into a binding stipulation that the amount in controversy did not exceed the jurisdictional threshhold at the time of filing. The Plaintiff did not do that in this case and instead filed a boilerplate motion to remand and failed to mention any stipulation regarding the amount in controversy. Accordingly, Plaintiff's #9 motion to remand is DENIED without prejudice unless and until Plaintiff enters into a binding stipulation that he did NOT intend to seek damages in excess of $75,000.00 at the time of filing. For example, an appropriate stipulation by the parties would state: "Plaintiffs, with the consent of Defendants, hereby irrevocably stipulate that the amount in controversy in this matter was, at the time of filing this suit in the Court of Common Pleas for ______________ County, South Carolina, limited to no more than Seventy Four Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Nine Dollars ($74,999.00). Plaintiffs further stipulate that they will at no time move to amend the complaint to seek an amount in excess of $74,999.00, and shall not otherwise ask for damages in excess of that amount. If a jury returns a verdict in excess of that amount, the state court shall be required and authorized to reduce the verdict to that amount, i.e. $74,999.00. Plaintiffs further agree that they will not attempt to collect on any judgment rendered in excess of $74,999.00 in the event a verdict is rendered exceeding this amount. This stipulation is and shall remain binding on all parties while this matter is pending in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina and shall remain binding at all times in the future when this matter may be pending in the Court of Common Pleas for ______________ County, South Carolina, if remanded to that court." Signed by Chief Judge R Bryan Harwell on 12/28/2022.(tmcb, )
|
| Filing 9 MOTION to Remand by Thomas Daigle. Response to Motion due by 1/10/2023. 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. No proposed order.(Austin, Sarah) |
| Filing 8 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Lowe's Home Centers LLC. (Melling, Andrew) (Main Document 8 replaced on 12/29/2022 with corrected document provided by filer) (hcic, ). |
|
Filing 7
CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING ORDER: Rule 26(f) Conference Deadline 1/10/2023, 26(a) Initial Disclosures due by 1/24/2023, Rule 26 Report due by 1/24/2023, Motions to Amend Pleadings due by 3/21/2023, Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 4/20/2023, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 5/22/2023, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 5/22/2023, Discovery due by 7/20/2023, Motions due by 8/4/2023, Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures due by 9/20/2023, ADR Statement due by 8/6/2023, Mediation Due by 9/5/2023. 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 11/2/2023. Signed by Chief Judge R Bryan Harwell on 12/21/2022. (hcic, )
|
| Filing 6 ANSWER to Complaint by Lowe's Home Centers LLC.(Melling, Andrew) |
|
Filing 4
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 12/20/2022. (tmcb, )
|
| Filing 3 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Lowe's Home Centers LLC.(hcic, ) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Horry County Court of Common Pleas, case number 2022-CP-26-06977 (filing fee $402 receipt number ASCDC-10848172), filed by Lowe's Home Centers LLC. (Attachments: #1 State Court Documents)(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
| Search for this case: Daigle v. Lowe's Home Centers LLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Thomas Daigle | |
| Represented By: | Sarah Austin Austin |
| 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: Lowe's Home Centers LLC | |
| Represented By: | Andrew G Melling |
| 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.
