Gill v. Crowe (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-129-15, 7 pp.) (J. Michelle Childs, J.) 1:15-cv-01827; D.S.C. Holding: Even though the complaint did not specify an amount of damages, and even though it demanded both general and punitive damages, plaintiff has since ...

Tagged with: Amount in controversy Diversity Jurisdiction

Meadows v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-106-15, 10 pp.) (J. Michelle Childs, J.) 1:14-cv-04531; D.S.C. Holding: Even though plaintiff’s state-court complaint did not demand a specific amount of damages, and even though she has now stipulated that ...

Tagged with: Amount in controversy

Sweatman v. Bringger (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-256-14, 6 pp.) (J. Michelle Childs, J.) 5:14-cv-00622; D.S.C. Holding: The first unequivocally clear and certain evidence that the amount of damages exceeded the $75,000 threshold was not available to defendant until plaintiff submitted ...

Tagged with: ' Removal Amount in controversy

Cox v. Willhite Seed, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-243-14, 6 pp.) (J. Michelle Childs, J.) 1:13-cv-02893; D.S.C. Holding: Ordinarily, the damages claimed in a complaint determine the jurisdictional amount for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction; however, defendant cites to case ...

Tagged with: Amount in controversy Diversity

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Sparkleberry Hill Apartments The plaintiff-insurer seeks a declaration that it need not indemnify the defendant-insureds in an underlying claim relating to mold in one of the insureds’ apartments. If the endorsement in question did apply, it would only provide $50,000 of coverage. Defendants have shown that plaintiff’s claim does not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). This case is dismissed without prejudice.

Tagged with: Amount in controversy Civil Practice Diversity Jurisdiction

McClurkin v. Champion Laboratories, Inc. Even though the defendant-corporation has a facility in South Carolina, since it was incorporated in Delaware and has its “nerve center” in Illinois, defendant is a citizen of Delaware and Illinois but not of South Carolina. Plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court is denied. A corporation’s principal place of business is where the corporation’s high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities.

Tagged with: Amount in controversy Civil Practice Corporate Diversity Federal Jurisdiction Punitive Damages

No Regrets Properties, Inc. v. Neighborhood Sports Pub Concepts, Inc. Even if defendant's counterclaims could be aggregated with plaintiff's claims to reach the jurisdictional amount in controversy in a removal case, the amount in controversy must be considered as of the dates of the filing of the complaint and the filing of the notice of removal. Defendant had not filed its counterclaims as of the date of removal, and plaintiffs have disclaimed any award in excess of $74,900; therefore, the amount in controversy does not support federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court is granted.

Tagged with: Amount in controversy counterclaims Diversity Jurisdiction