Fox et al v. Jacobs
| Neontae Fox and Marcus Fox |
| Zachary Jacobs |
| 4:2025cv09708 |
| August 5, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Joseph Dawson |
| Motor Vehicle |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.) |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 9, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 ***DOCUMENT E-MAILED: True Certified copy of 14 Text Order on Motion to Remand to Marquita McLain, [email protected]. Hard copy also mailed to the same at PO Drawer 996, Bennettsville, SC 29512-0996. (lgib, ) |
| Filing 14 TEXT ORDER granting Plaintiffs' [DE 9] Motion to Remand."If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). Subject matter jurisdiction in diversity requires "the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs." 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). To determine the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction, "the court should examine the complaint at the time of removal in order to determine the amount in controversy." Thompson v. Victoria Fire & Cas. Co., 32 F. Supp. 2d 847, 848 (D.S.C. 1999) (citing St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 292 (1938)). "[R]emoval of the action is proper on the basis of an amount in controversy... if the district court finds, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds" $75,000. 28 U.S.C. 1446(c)(2)(B). "If federal jurisdiction is doubtful, a remand is necessary." Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 1994). Here, at the time of removal, Plaintiffs' Complaint did not specify the amount of damages sought. Defendant removed this action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, contending that Plaintiffs' allegations of bodily injury, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium, and punitive damages sufficiently establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (DE 1; DE 1-1.) When a plaintiff challenges removal, "the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that removal jurisdiction is proper." Scott v. Cricket Commc'ns, LLC, 865 F.3d 189, 194 (4th Cir. 2017) (emphasis in original). "When a plaintiff's complaint leaves the amount of damages unspecified, the defendant must provide evidence to 'show... what the stakes of litigation... are given the plaintiff's actual demands.'" Id. To resolve doubts regarding the amount in controversy, "both sides submit proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied." Id. (citing Dart Cherokee Basin Op. Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014)). Here, Defendant has offered no competent evidencesuch as medical records, affidavits, wage-loss documentation, future medical cost estimates, or settlement demandsestablishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Defendant instead relies on generalized allegations of injury, Plaintiffs' request for punitive damages, and Plaintiffs' refusal to stipulate that their damages are less than the jurisdictional threshold. However, courts in this District have consistently held that a plaintiff's refusal to stipulate, standing alone, is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy. See McKnight v. Smoker, No. 4:24-cv-00888-JD; Ford v. Washam, No. 5:23-cv-04719-MGL, 2024 WL 340788 (D.S.C. Jan. 30, 2024). Because Defendant's showing rests on speculation rather than competent proof, Defendant has failed to meet its burden of establishing that the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. 1332(a) is satisfied. Accordingly, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. This action is, therefore, REMANDED to the Marlboro County Court of Common Pleas. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by the Honorable Joseph Dawson, III on 12/9/2025. (lgib, ) |
| Filing 12 REPLY to Response to Motion re #9 MOTION to Remand Response filed by Marcus Fox, Neontae Fox. (Brawley-Gray, Toyya) |
| Filing 11 RESPONSE in Opposition re #9 MOTION to Remand Response filed by Zachary Jacobs.Reply to Response to Motion due by 9/24/2025 Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. (Banner, J) |
| Filing 10 AMENDED CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING ORDER. Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 4/30/2026, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 6/1/2026, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 6/1/2026, Discovery due by 7/31/2026, Motions due by 9/2/2026, Jury Selection Deadline 12/7/2026, Mediation Due by 8/14/2026. Signed by the Honorable Joseph Dawson, III on 9/5/2025. (lgib, ) |
| Filing 9 MOTION to Remand by Marcus Fox, Neontae Fox. Response to Motion due by 9/18/2025. 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 Filed Summons & Complaint, #2 Exhibit Ltr From SCDMV TO Def re Acceptance of Service, #3 Exhibit Ltr from SCDMV re Certified Mail Receipt)No proposed order.(Brawley-Gray, Toyya) |
| Filing 8 Joint Rule 26(f) Report by Zachary Jacobs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Amended Consent Scheduling Order)(Banner, J) |
| Filing 7 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Marcus Fox, Neontae Fox.(Brawley-Gray, Toyya) |
| Filing 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Zachary Jacobs (Banner, J) |
| Filing 5 CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING ORDER. Rule 26(f) Conference Deadline 8/27/2025, 26(a) Initial Disclosures due by 9/10/2025, Rule 26 Report due by 9/10/2025, Motions to Amend Pleadings due by 10/1/2025, Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 10/31/2025, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 12/1/2025, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 12/1/2025, Discovery due by 1/30/2026, Motions due by 3/2/2026, Jury Selection Deadline 6/1/2026, Mediation Due by 1/30/2026. Signed by the Honorable Joseph Dawson, III on 8/6/2025. (lgib, ) |
| Filing 4 ANSWER to Complaint (Notice of Removal) by Zachary Jacobs. (swel, ) |
| Filing 3 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Zachary Jacobs.(swel, ) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Marlboro County Common Pleas, case number 2025-CP-34-00192. (Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ASCDC-12639914), filed by Zachary Jacobs. (Attachments: #1 State Court Documents, #2 Verification)(swel, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
