The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ANTHONY JOHNSON CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 24-314
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL SECTION “L” (2)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Anthony Johnson’s (“Johnson”) Motion to Remand to State
Court, R. Doc. 5. Defendant Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”) opposes the motion. R. Doc.
9. After a review of the record, briefings, and applicable law, the Court rules as follows.
I. BACKGROUND & PRESENT MOTION
This case arises out of an automobile accident involving Anthony Johnson which occurred
on November 18, 2022. R. Doc. 1 at 1. Allstate is the uninsured/underinsured carrier of AJ’s
Produce Inc., Johnson’s employer. Id. At the time of the accident, Johnson was allegedly in the
course and scope of his employment. Id. Johnson sued Allstate in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans on November 13, 2023 and served Allstate on December 5, 2023. Id.1 On
February 2, 2024, Allstate removed to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, asserting
that Johnson is a resident of Louisiana, Allstate is domiciled in Illinois, and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. Id. at 2-3. Upon removal, the Clerk of Court issued a directive to
Allstate as the removing party, instructing it to file into the record within fourteen days various
1 There is an additional named defendant, Ebonie Aejah Cambre, although the record indicates that she has not been
served nor does she have counsel enrolled.
information, such as the remaining parties, all state court pleadings, and copies of service returns
that were filed in state court. R. Doc. 3.
Johnson filed the instant motion to remand arguing that removal was untimely because
Allstate was required to remove within 30 days of being served and instead removed 61 days after
it was served, and additionally that fourteen days had elapsed and Allstate had not complied with
the Clerk’s directive, “rendering the subject Removal defective.” R. Doc. 5-1 at 2-3. Noting that
Allstate was served on December 5, 2023, and then removed on February 5, 2024, Johnson argues
removal was not timely. Id. Johnson provides no authority to support remand on the basis of failure
to comply with the Clerk’s directive.
Allstate opposes the motion, arguing that the initial pleading in this case failed to state an
amount in controversy at all and therefore Allstate had no reason to believe the matter was
removable. R. Doc. 9 at 2-3. Upon receipt of responses to written discovery, however, Allstate
represents that it learned the amount in controversy satisfied diversity jurisdiction, bringing its
removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). Id. at 3. Allstate claims it received Johnson’s responses to
Requests for Admissions on January 23, 2024 admitting that his damages exceed $75,000. Id.
(citing R. Doc. 9-2). Therefore, Allstate argues, its notice of removal was timely because it was
within thirty days of receiving these “other papers” under § 1446(b)(3) and it was timely under §
1446(c)(1) because it was filed within a year from the commencement of the action. Id.
Lastly, Allstate notes that failing to comply with the Clerk’s directive does not render a
motion defective. Id. at 4. In Louisiana State v. Arais-Elwin, the court observed that the defendant
did not comply with the Clerk’s directive to file the complete state record, but nevertheless did not
remand on these grounds, nor did it prevent the court from analyzing the substantive issues it faced.
No. 18-4243, 2019 WL 668627, at *1 n.2 (E.D. La. Feb. 19, 2019). Allstate argues that if
noncompliance with the Clerk’s directive were fatal, that court would have remanded on those
grounds alone. R. Doc. 9 at 4.
II. APPLICABLE LAW
28 U.S.C. § 1441 provides that “any civil action brought in a State court of which the
district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or
the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the
place where such action is pending.” Accordingly, a defendant may remove a case to federal court
if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the action. “Federal courts are courts
of limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Gunn
v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of
America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). The Fifth Circuit has explained that the removal statute should
be strictly construed. Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir.
2002). Any doubt concerning the basis of jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand. Acuna
v. Brown & Root, 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2000). Once a motion to remand has been filed, the
burden is on the defendant to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that federal jurisdiction
exists. De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1412 (5th Cir. 1995).
In general, a defendant who wishes to remove an action first filed in state court must file a
notice of removal within thirty days of being served or provided with the initial pleading or being
served with a summons, “whichever period is shorter.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). If, however, the
initial pleading does not state a case which is removable on its face, “a notice of removal may be
filed within thirty days after receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of
an amended pleading, motion, order, or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the
case is one which is or has become removable.” Id. at § 1446(b)(3). If the initial pleading states a
case that cannot be removed solely because the amount in controversy does not exceed the
diversity jurisdiction threshold, then “information relating to the amount in controversy in the
record of the State proceeding, or in responses to discovery, shall be treated as an ‘other paper’
under subsection (b)(3).” Id. at § 1446(c)(3)(A). Cases that are removable based on diversity
cannot be removed pursuant to § 1446(b)(3) “more than 1 year after commencement of the action”
absent plaintiffs bad faith in attempting to prevent removal. /d. at § 1446(c)(1).
I. DISCUSSION
The Court is satisfied that the notice of removal is timely under § 1446(b)(3). The initial
pleading did not specify an amount in controversy and therefore did not put Allstate on notice that
the case was removable. See R. Doc. 1-2. However, once Allstate received “information relating
to the amount in controversy ... in response to discovery,” this amounted to an “other paper”
under § 1446(b)(3) and Allstate timely filed its removal notice within thirty days. That Allstate did
not comply initially with the Clerk’s directive is not fatal, and the record shows that Allstate
ultimately filed its notice of compliance on February 28, 2024. R. Doc. 7. The Court will not
remand on this basis alone.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Johnson’s motion to remand is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 7th day of March, 2024.
United States District Judge