CATHERALL v. RAYNER

M.D. Georgia

CATHERALL v. RAYNER

DecidedMay 31, 2023

Docket3:23-cv-00053

StatusUnknown

This text of CATHERALL v. RAYNER (CATHERALL v. RAYNER) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

CATHERALL v. RAYNER, (M.D. Ga. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATHENS DIVISION THOMAS CATHERALL, et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 3:23-cv-00053-TES LISA K. RAYNER, Defendant.

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Plaintiffs Thomas Catherall, Perseverance 30A, LLC, and Best Served Cold, LLC, filed this case in the Superior Court of Clarke County, Georgia, on March 30, 2023, alleging claims of tortious interference with contractual and business relations, defamation, and punitive damages. [Doc. 1-2]. On May 9, 2023, Defendant Lisa Rayner removed the case to this Court, asserting the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. See [Doc. 1, p. 1 (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441(a))]. In her removal filing, Defendant claimed the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. [Id.]. After reviewing the pleadings,1 the Court ordered the parties to respond and show cause regarding the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction—specifically to clarify if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. [Doc. 3]. In response, Defendant stated

1 See Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 1173, 1179 (11th Cir. 2004) (“Federal courts are obligated to inquire into subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte . . .”). “that the removal of this civil action to this Court appears to have been premature.” [Doc. 8, p. 1]. Therefore, Defendant asks the Court to remand the case to the Superior

Court of Clarke County. [Id.].2 The Court agrees that remand is appropriate. See Griffith v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 884 F. Supp. 2d 1218, 1228 (N.D. Ala. 2012) (“Because the jurisdictional amount in

controversy in this case is not apparent on the removing documents, ‘the proper course is remand.’” (quoting Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1218 (11th Cir. 2007))). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Remand [Doc. 8] and

REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of Clarke County. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). SO ORDERED, this 31st day of May, 2023. S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 Based on the language in the filing, the Court CONSTRUES Defendant’s Response [Doc. 8] as a Motion to Remand.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATHENS DIVISION THOMAS CATHERALL, et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 3:23-cv-00053-TES LISA K. RAYNER, Defendant.

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Plaintiffs Thomas Catherall, Perseverance 30A, LLC, and Best Served Cold, LLC, filed this case in the Superior Court of Clarke County, Georgia, on March 30, 2023, alleging claims of tortious interference with contractual and business relations, defamation, and punitive damages. [Doc. 1-2]. On May 9, 2023, Defendant Lisa Rayner removed the case to this Court, asserting the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. See [Doc. 1, p. 1 (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441(a))]. In her removal filing, Defendant claimed the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. [Id.]. After reviewing the pleadings,1 the Court ordered the parties to respond and show cause regarding the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction—specifically to clarify if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. [Doc. 3]. In response, Defendant stated

1 See Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 1173, 1179 (11th Cir. 2004) (“Federal courts are obligated to inquire into subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte . . .”). “that the removal of this civil action to this Court appears to have been premature.” [Doc. 8, p. 1]. Therefore, Defendant asks the Court to remand the case to the Superior

Court of Clarke County. [Id.].2 The Court agrees that remand is appropriate. See Griffith v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 884 F. Supp. 2d 1218, 1228 (N.D. Ala. 2012) (“Because the jurisdictional amount in

controversy in this case is not apparent on the removing documents, ‘the proper course is remand.’” (quoting Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1218 (11th Cir. 2007))). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Remand [Doc. 8] and

REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of Clarke County. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). SO ORDERED, this 31st day of May, 2023. S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 Based on the language in the filing, the Court CONSTRUES Defendant’s Response [Doc. 8] as a Motion to Remand.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

CATHERALL v. RAYNER, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/catherall-v-rayner-gamd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack