Larry Anthony Mercado v. Vannadium, Inc.; Richard Gilchrist; and Rosemarie Savino

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation concerning removal, remand, and personal jurisdiction. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion to remand, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants.

Holdings

1. The amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 when plaintiff's claims for back wages, expenses, and equitable relief were combined; therefore, remand to state court was unwarranted.
2. South Carolina lacked general and specific personal jurisdiction over defendants because defendants had no sufficient general contacts with the state and did not purposefully direct their activities at South Carolina beyond contracting with a person who happened to reside there.
3. Jurisdictional discovery was properly denied because it was not likely to produce facts sufficient to defeat the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amount in controversy satisfied the $75,000 threshold for diversity jurisdiction and therefore defeated plaintiff's motion to remand.
2. Whether defendants were subject to general or specific personal jurisdiction in South Carolina.
3. Whether plaintiff was entitled to jurisdictional discovery before resolution of defendants' motion to dismiss.

Disposition

dismissed