From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carolina Chloride, Inc. v. Richland County

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
Sep 9, 2005
C.A. No. 3:05-2154-CMC (D.S.C. Sep. 9, 2005)

Opinion

C.A. No. 3:05-2154-CMC.

September 9, 2005


OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND


Plaintiff's motion to remand is granted. The granting of this motion is based on Plaintiff's clarification of two ambiguous claims in the amended complaint which Plaintiff asserts do not assert claims arising under federal law. Specifically, Plaintiff has clarified that its inverse condemnation claim is based on a specified state statute and has disavowed reliance on federal law for its substantive due process claim (most critically, 28 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the federal constitutional provisions which might be enforced through that statute). Whether the disavowal of reliance on federal law may be fatal to the substantive due process claim raises legal questions for resolution by the state court. Plaintiff shall, however, be estopped from modifying its position as to the scope of its claims on remand. The court also denies Plaintiff's request for fees given the ambiguity of the complaint at the time of removal.

For the reasons set forth above, this action is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for Richland County, South Carolina.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Carolina Chloride, Inc. v. Richland County

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
Sep 9, 2005
C.A. No. 3:05-2154-CMC (D.S.C. Sep. 9, 2005)
Case details for

Carolina Chloride, Inc. v. Richland County

Case Details

Full title:Carolina Chloride, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Richland County, a South Carolina…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division

Date published: Sep 9, 2005

Citations

C.A. No. 3:05-2154-CMC (D.S.C. Sep. 9, 2005)