Floyd Lee Locums Inc v. Brigante
| Floyd Lee Locums Inc |
| Zachary L Brigante |
| 4:2024cv00874 |
| February 21, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| R Bryan Harwell |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal-Contract Dispute |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 2, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
TEXT ORDER granting the #11 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint. Defendant Brigante's response to Plaintiff's Complaint now due April 29, 2024. Signed by Chief Judge R Bryan Harwell on 04/02/2024.(hbro, )
|
| Filing 11 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by Zachary L Brigante. Response to Motion due by 4/12/2024. 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.(Ozment, Matthew) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Appearance by Lindsey Marie Behnke on behalf of Floyd Lee Locums Inc (Behnke, Lindsey) |
| Filing 9 LETTER EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER. Zachary L Brigante's answer due 3/29/2024. (Ozment, Matthew) Modified on 2/29/2024 to correct event type. (hcic, ) |
|
Filing 8
TEXT ORDER: Having reviewed the parties' responses 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 02/27/2024. (hbro, )
|
| Filing 7 STIPULATION re 4 Order,,,,,,,,,,, JOINT STIPULATION TO THE AMOUNT CONTROVERY by Zachary L Brigante. (Ozment, Matthew) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE and Acknowledgment of receipt of Notice of Removal by Clerk of Court for Florence County. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Electronic Filing Acceptance from State Court)(Ozment, Matthew) |
|
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, Plaintiffs 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. Plaintiffs shall file a response not later than five calendar days thereafter and, in that response, include a clarification as to whether Plaintiffs intended to pursue, at the time of filing the original complaint, damages in excess of the jurisdictional amount of $75,000. If Plaintiffs did not intend to pursue damages adequate to satisfy the jurisdictional threshold at the time of filing and if Plaintiffs stipulate 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 Plaintiffs' case. Signed by Chief Judge R. Bryan Harwell on 2/22/2024. (hbro, )
|
| Filing 3 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Zachary L Brigante.(hcic, ) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Florence County Court of Commom Pleas, case number 2024-CP-21-00152 (filing fee $405 receipt number ASCDC-11602423), filed by Zachary L Brigante. (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: Floyd Lee Locums Inc v. Brigante | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Floyd Lee Locums Inc | |
| Represented By: | Jeffrey L Payne |
| Represented By: | Lindsey Marie Behnke |
| 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: Zachary L Brigante | |
| Represented By: | Matthew Randall Ozment |
| 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.
