Motion to Remand Granted Where Plaintiff Alleges Only State Law Claims

Abraham v. NEWBERRY COUNTY, Dist. Court, D. South Carolina 2012 – Google Scholar.

The defendant removed the action, but was unable to identify a federal question set forth in the complaint.  Thus, the case was remanded back to state court.

The court held as follows:

The defendant bears the burden of establishing the existence of removal jurisdiction.Mulachey v. Columbia Organic Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 1994). Because removal jurisdiction raises significant federalism concerns, a district court must strictly construe removal jurisdiction. Id. (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941)). If federal jurisdiction is in doubt, remand to state court is necessary. Id. Where, as here, the defendant bases subject matter jurisdiction on the presence of a federal question, the court must evaluate the plaintiff’s complaint filed in a state court to determine if federal question jurisdiction is present. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986).

Plaintiff states he has alleged solely state law claims in the instant action and seeks aremand of this action to state court. Defendant does not oppose a remand. As is appears this court does not have federal question jurisdiction, the court concludes that this action must be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for Newberry County.

Edward X. Clinton, Jr.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s