County of Charleston, South Carolina v. AT&T Corp et al, No. 2:2017cv02534 - Document 61 (D.S.C. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION denying as moot 17 Defendants' Motion for More Definite Statement. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 3/6/2018.(sshe, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
County of Charleston, South Carolina v. AT&T Corp et al Doc. 61 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Couny of Charleston South Crolina, Plaintif, V. AT&T Cop, et. al., Deendants. Case No.: 2:17-cv-02534 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER AND OPINION = - - I - I This matter is before the Court on Deendants' Joint Motion or .; I !· ·§ A , J > · . · ore)ei:e · · .. N m • Statement. (Dkt. No. 17.) On October 3, 2017, this Court entered an order to tay b ng on Deendants' Motion or a More Definite Statement until this Court ruled on Plaintif's anticipated motion to remand. The Court ordered Plaintiff to move to remand no later than October 20, 2017. (Dkt. No. 24.) Plaintiff moved to remand on October 20, 2017. (Dkt. No. 32.) On March 1, 2018, Plaintif withdrew its motion to remand (Dt. No. 58), conceding that there is now complete diversity in this action due to (1) the full settlement of Plainti's claims against McClellanville and (2) a stipulation by deendants Comcast Phone of South Carolina, Inc. nd Comcast IP Phone, LLC that Plaintif may mend its Complaint to include Comcast IP Phone, LLC as a Deendant and to remove Comcast Phone of South Carolina, Inc. (Dkt. No. 58 at 2). The parties then filed a joint stipulation agreeing that Plaintif Conty of Charleston shall file an Amended Complaint on or beore April 2, 2018 reflecting these changes and alleging ederal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Dkt. No. 59.) As the parties have -1Dockets.Justia.com filed a motion consenting to Plaintiffs filing an amended complaint, Defendants' motion for a More Definite Statement (Dkt. No. 17) is denied as moot. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Richard Mark Gergel United States District Court Judge March // , 2018 Charleston, South Carolina -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
