TEXT ORDER granting Plaintiffs' [DE 9] Motion to Remand."If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Subject matter jurisdiction in diversity requires "the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). To determine the amount in controversy for federal diversity jurisdiction, "the court should examine the complaint at the time of removal in order to determine the amount in controversy." Thompson v. Victoria Fire & Cas. 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)). "[R]emoval of the action is proper on the basis of an amount in controversy... if the district court finds, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds" $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B). "If federal jurisdiction is doubtful, a remand is necessary." Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 1994).
Here, at the time of removal, Plaintiffs' Complaint did not specify the amount of damages sought. Defendant removed this action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, contending that Plaintiffs' allegations of bodily injury, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium, and punitive damages sufficiently establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (DE 1; DE 1-1.)
When a plaintiff challenges removal, "the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that removal jurisdiction is proper." Scott v. Cricket Commc'ns, LLC, 865 F.3d 189, 194 (4th Cir. 2017) (emphasis in original). "When a plaintiff's complaint leaves the amount of damages unspecified, the defendant must provide evidence to 'show... what the stakes of litigation... are given the plaintiff's actual demands.'" Id. To resolve doubts regarding the amount in controversy, "both sides submit proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied." Id. (citing Dart Cherokee Basin Op. Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014)).
Here, Defendant has offered no competent evidencesuch as medical records, affidavits, wage-loss documentation, future medical cost estimates, or settlement demandsestablishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Defendant instead relies on generalized allegations of injury, Plaintiffs' request for punitive damages, and Plaintiffs' refusal to stipulate that their damages are less than the jurisdictional threshold. However, courts in this District have consistently held that a plaintiff's refusal to stipulate, standing alone, is insufficient to establish the amount in controversy. See McKnight v. Smoker, No. 4:24-cv-00888-JD; Ford v. Washam, No. 5:23-cv-04719-MGL, 2024 WL 340788 (D.S.C. Jan. 30, 2024).
Because Defendant's showing rests on speculation rather than competent proof, Defendant has failed to meet its burden of establishing that the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) is satisfied. Accordingly, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
This action is, therefore, REMANDED to the Marlboro County Court of Common Pleas.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed by the Honorable Joseph Dawson, III on 12/9/2025. (lgib, )