Sheppard v. Price Gregory International, LLC
5:24-cv-00256
S.D.W. VaApr 14, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Danielle Sheppard filed seven state law claims, including discrimination and torts, against Price Gregory International, LLC and William Greg Newcomb in West Virginia state court.
- Price Gregory removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds before Newcomb was served.
- Newcomb, after being served, moved to remand or dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing he did not consent to removal and that claims settled with Price Gregory reduced the amount in controversy below $75,000.
- Sheppard opposed remand and maintained that federal jurisdiction was proper; Price Gregory's removal notice alleged sufficient damages.
- The court addressed the timeliness of Newcomb’s motion and whether subject-matter jurisdiction persisted after some claims were settled with the corporate defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural defect: Lack of consent to removal by Newcomb | Opposed remand; believed removal valid | Removal without unanimous consent invalid | Motion untimely; objection waived |
| Whether dismissal of some claims defeats diversity jurisdiction | Jurisdiction determined at removal | Settlement drops amount below $75k | Jurisdiction assessed at removal; still met |
| Whether amount in controversy requirement was met | Removal notice alleged >$75k | Now under $75k after settlement | Threshold satisfied at removal; remains |
| Motion to stay discovery pending ruling on jurisdiction | Opposed stay | Requested stay until jurisdiction resolved | Denied as moot (given main motion denied) |
Key Cases Cited
- Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (removal jurisdiction interpreted)
- Mayor & City Council of Balt. v. BP P.L.C., 31 F.4th 178 (interpretation of removal statutes)
- Wideman v. Innovative Fibers LLC, 100 F.4th 490 (diversity jurisdiction analysis)
- Elliott v. Am. States Inc. Co., 883 F.3d 384 (original jurisdiction in diversity)
- Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d 64 (remand motion timing and defects)
- Cades v. H & R Block, Inc., 43 F.3d 869 (timeliness of removal objection)
- Payne ex rel. Est. of Calzada v. Brake, 439 F.3d 198 (waiver of removal procedure defects)
- Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192 (removal procedure and allegations)
- Francis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 709 F.3d 362 (jurisdiction assessed at removal)