Summary
The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina adopts a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and denies Plaintiff’s motions concerning remand, dismissal, summary judgment, default judgment, striking filings, and related relief. The Court holds that diversity jurisdiction was determined at removal based on the complaint’s alleged amount in controversy and that post-removal efforts to reduce damages could not defeat jurisdiction. The Court also finds Defendant’s motion to cease and desist moot, admonishes Plaintiff regarding purportedly forged court orders, and warns of possible sanctions or dismissal for future violations.
Holdings
- A plaintiff's post-removal notice or amendment limiting damages below the jurisdictional threshold does not defeat diversity jurisdiction when the amount in controversy satisfied the threshold at the time of removal.
- Defendant complied with the procedural requirements for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446.
- Plaintiff was not entitled to strike Defendant's filings or obtain default judgment because Defendant filed a timely answer and timely responses to Plaintiff's motions.
- Defendant's motion to cease and desist was moot, although the court admonished Plaintiff not to submit filings bearing a purported judicial signature or make false representations.
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court retained diversity subject matter jurisdiction when Plaintiff attempted to limit his damages after removal.
- Whether Defendant's removal complied with the procedural requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446.
- Whether Plaintiff was entitled to strike Defendant's filings or obtain default judgment despite Defendant's timely answer and responses.
- Whether Defendant's motion to cease and desist concerning Plaintiff's purported judicial order should be granted.
- Whether Plaintiff was entitled to a protective order, stay, or additional remand and default-judgment relief.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (4)
- Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976)(followed)
- Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)(followed)
- Clear Choice Constr., LLC v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins., No. 0:17-cv-1890-MBS, 2018 WL 718960, at *4 (D.S.C. Feb. 6, 2018)(followed)
- Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.