Murray v. Family Health Centers Inc
| Kimberly Murray |
| Family Health Centers Inc |
| 5:2021cv01428 |
| May 13, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Sherri A Lydon |
| Labor: Fair Standards |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 16, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 16 ***DOCUMENT MAILED 13 Order on Motion to Remand to State Court, placed in U.S. Mail from Columbia Clerks Office to Winnifa Brown-Clark, PO Box 9000,orangeburg, SC 29115-9000. (ahil) |
| Filing 15 ***DOCUMENT E-MAILED 13 Order on Motion to Remand to State Court,to Winnifa Clark, Orangeburg Clerk of Court at WClark@orangeburgcounty.org. (ahil) |
| Filing 14 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Family Health Centers Inc, filed by Kimberly Murray. Service due by 9/14/2021.(ahil) |
| Filing 13 TEXT ORDER granting #8 Motion to Amend Complaint and #9 Motion to Remand. Plaintiff seeks to amend her complaint to remove the only federal cause of actionalleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In Defendant's response, it consents to the amendment, reserving all available defenses. [ECF No. 11.] Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a party to amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days of service of the original pleading or if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of the responsive pleading or Rule 12 motion, whichever is earlier. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave; leave should be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has interpreted Rule 15 as a liberal one, giving effect to the federal policy in favor of resolving cases on their merits instead of disposing of them on technicalities. Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006). As a result, leave to amend a pleading should be denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would have been futile. Id. The proposed amendment does not appear to run counter to any of the bases for denial, and Defendant affirmatively consents to the amendment. Further, the court finds that Plaintiffs attempt to avoid federal jurisdiction does not constitute bad faith. Harless v. CSX Hotels, Inc., 389 F.3d 444 (4th Cir. 2004). The court, therefore, grants the Motion to Amend Complaint. The Clerk of Court is directed to file the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 8-1, as a separate docket entry. Based on the foregoing, the court also grants the Motion to Remand. Under the authority of 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Because granting Plaintiffs Motion to Amend effectively removes the sole federal claim and basis for federal jurisdiction, the court finds that remand is warranted. See Lane v. Joe Gibson Automotive, Inc., No. 7:08-cv-1743, 2008 WL 2704991, at *3 (D.S.C. July 9, 2008) (relying on section 1367(c)(3) to support remand following amendment). After the Amended Complaint is entered on the record, the Clerk of Court is instructed to remand this case to the Court of Common Pleas for Orangeburg County, South Carolina. Clerk's Notice: Attorneys are responsible for supplementing the State Record with all documents filed in Federal Court. Entered at the direction of the Honorable Sherri A. Lydon on June 16, 2021.(ahil) |
| Filing 11 RESPONSE in Support re #8 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint, #9 MOTION to Remand to State Court Response filed by Family Health Centers Inc. (Stetson, Hannah) |
| Filing 9 MOTION to Remand to State Court by Kimberly Murray. Response to Motion due by 6/9/2021. 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.(Elling, Tiffany) |
| Filing 8 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by Kimberly Murray. Response to Motion due by 6/9/2021. 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 Proposed Amended Complaint)No proposed order.(Elling, Tiffany) |
| Filing 7 CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING ORDER Rule 26(f) Conference Deadline 6/9/2021, Rule 26 Report due by 6/23/2021, Motions to Amend Pleadings due by 8/3/2021, Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 8/30/2021, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 9/27/2021, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 10/18/2021, Discovery due by 11/16/2021, Motion in Limine due by 1/18/2022, Motions due by 11/30/2021, Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures due by 1/24/2022, Jury Selection Deadline 2/14/2022, Mediation Due by 12/14/2021, Signed by the Honorable Sherri A. Lydon on May 20, 2021. (ahil) |
| Filing 6 ANSWER to Complaint by Family Health Centers Inc.(Belcher, Reginald) |
| Filing 5 MOTION to Dismiss the Causes of Action Alleging Unjust Enrichment and Conversion by Family Health Centers Inc. Response to Motion due by 6/3/2021. 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 Memo in Support)No proposed order.(Belcher, Reginald) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE and Acknowledgment of receipt of Notice of Removal by Clerk of Court for Orangeburg County. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Executed Acknowledgment)(Stetson, Hannah) |
| Filing 3 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Family Health Centers Inc.(ahil) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Orangeburg County Court of Common Pleas, case number 2021-CP-38-278. (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0420-9841544), filed by Family Health Centers Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 State Court Documents, Orangeburg Common Pleas, 2021-cv-01428-SAL, #2 Exhibit 2 State Court Notice of Filing of Removal)(ahil) |
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: Murray v. Family Health Centers Inc | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Kimberly Murray | |
| Represented By: | Tiffany P Elling |
| 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: Family Health Centers Inc | |
| Represented By: | Hannah Davis Stetson |
| Represented By: | Reginald W Belcher |
| 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.
