Singleton v. Asplundh Brush Control LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION Henry C. Singleton , ) Civil Action No. 0:20-cv-00802-JMC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Asplundh Brush Control, LLC ) ) Defendants. ) ) This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident on or about February 6, 2018 on Highway 215 in Fairfield County, South Carolina. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 4.) The matter before the court is a Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiff Henry C. Singleton with consent from Defendant Asplundh Brush Control, LLC. (ECF No. 6.) Here, the parties request a court order remanding this action to the state court because “Plaintiff has stipulated that damages will not exceed $74,999.00, so this case no longer meets the amount in controversy for diversity cases.” (Id.) Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, but a defendant is permitted to remove a case to federal court if the court would have had original jurisdiction over the matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a). A federal district court has “original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a). In determining the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction, the court must examine the complaint at the time of removal. Thompson v. Victoria Fire & Casualty 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)). Generally, “the sum claimed by a plaintiff in her complaint determines the jurisdictional amount, and a plaintiff may plead less than the jurisdictional amount to avoid federal jurisdiction.” Phillips v. Whirlpool Corp., 351 F. Supp. 2d 458, 461 (D.S.C. 2005) (citing, e.g., St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co., 303 U.S. at 294 (“Tf [the plaintiff] does not desire to try his case in the federal court he may resort to the expedient of suing for less than the jurisdictional amount, and though he would be justly entitled to more, the defendant cannot remove.”)) (internal citations omitted). Consequently, the court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1-1 at 2-5) and therefore, GRANTS the Consent Motion to Remand (ECF No. 6) this matter to state court. IT IS SO ORDERED. ft United States District Judge June 9, 2020 Columbia, South Carolina