Damond v. Cora-Quintero

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TERRIANA DAMOND CIVIL ACTION NO.

VERSUS 22-1033-BAJ-EWD

ACTION RESOURCES, LLC, ET AL.

RULING AND ORDER

Before the Court are two pending motions: (1) a Motion for Leave to File Third Amended

Notice of Removal (“Third Motion for Leave”),1 filed by removing defendant Third Coast

Insurance Company (“Third Coast”), which seeks leave of Court to file a Third Amended Notice

of Removal in an attempt to adequately allege the citizenship of all parties; and (2) a Motion to

Remand,2 filed by Plaintiff Terriana Damond (“Plaintiff”), which seeks an order remanding this

case to state court because Third Coast failed, despite multiple attempts, to adequately allege the

citizenship of all parties and failed to obtain the consent of Defendant Jose Cora-Quintero (“Cora-

Quintero”) before removing this case to federal court. Plaintiff opposes the Third Motion for

Leave, and Third Coast opposes the Motion to Remand.3 Third Coast and Plaintiff have also each

filed reply memoranda in support of their respective motions.4

The Court will deny the Third Motion for Leave because Third Coast’s proposed Third

Amended Notice of Removal still fails to fully cure all defective allegations of jurisdiction with

respect to the citizenship of Defendant Action Resources, LLC (“Action Resources”). However,

because (1) the Court’s discretionary examination of the record as a whole, including the

citizenship allegations made to date, show at least a substantial likelihood that subject matter

1 R. Doc. 16.

2 R. Doc. 14.

3 R. Docs. 18 & 17, respectively.

4 R. Docs. 21 & 25, respectively.

jurisdiction exists, and (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1653 permits a party to cure defective allegations of

jurisdiction through amendment of a notice of removal, Third Coast will be given one last chance

to amend its Notice of Removal to establish complete diversity by adequately alleging the

citizenship of all parties. Further, because Third Coast will have an opportunity to amend its Notice

of Removal, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand will be denied without prejudice to her ability to reurge

a Motion to Remand that addresses the allegations in any amended Notice of Removal.

I. BACKGROUND

This is a civil action involving claims for damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff in a June

10, 2022 car accident.5 Specifically, Plaintiff claims that she sustained injuries to her lower back,

head, and neck when a vehicle driven by Cora-Quintero, who was in the course and scope of his

employment with Action Resources, “suddenly and without warning…began to change from the

right lane to the left lane when he violently collided with the rear right corner of [Plaintiff’s]

vehicle throwing it into the concrete barrier on the bridge.”6 Plaintiff also claims that at the time

of the collision, Third Coast “had issued a policy of insurance in favor” of either Action Resources

and/or Cora-Quintero.7 On December 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Damages against Action

Resources, Cora-Quintero, and Third Coast (collectively, “Defendants”) in the Eighteenth Judicial

District Court for the Parish of Iberville, State of Louisiana.8

On December 16, 2022, Third Coast removed the case to this Court, asserting federal

subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.9 According to the Notice of Removal, the

parties are completely diverse because Plaintiff is a citizen of Louisiana and Defendants are

5 R. Doc. 1-1.

6 R. Doc. 1-1, ¶¶ 3-6, 10.

7 R. Doc. 1-1, ¶ 9.

8 R. Doc. 1-1, p. 4.

9 R. Doc. 1.

citizens Texas, Alabama, and Wisconsin,10 and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000,

exclusive of interest and costs.11 Because the citizenships of Plaintiff and Action Resources were

not adequately alleged, a sua sponte Notice and Order was issued by the Court on December 29,

2022 requiring Third Coast to file a motion for leave to amend the Notice of Removal by no later

January 5, 2023, which attached a proposed comprehensive Amended Notice of Removal that

included all of Third Coast’s allegations, as revised, supplemented, and/or amended, and which

properly alleged the citizenships of Plaintiff and Action Resources.12

On January 5, 2023, Third Coast filed a Motion for Leave to File First Amended Notice of

Removal (“First Motion for Leave”), which attached a proposed First Amended Notice of

Removal.13 The proposed First Amended Notice of Removal alleged (1) that on information and

belief, Plaintiff is domiciled in and a citizen of Louisiana; and (2) that Action Resources is an

Alabama “limited liability corporation…[that] is 100% owned by one member, Action Enterprise

Holdings, LLC, a limited liability corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware

with its principal place of business in the State of Alabama.”14 Although the proposed First

Amended Notice of Removal adequately alleged Plaintiff’s citizenship, it was still deficient

because Third Coast did not sufficiently allege the citizenship of Action Resources’ sole member,

10 R. Doc. 1, ¶¶ VII – XI. Third Coast alleged that “[b]ased on the information in the…Petition for Damages,

Plaintiff…is a person of the full age of majority who is domiciled in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.” Id. at ¶ X.

However, the Petition simply alleged that Plaintiff is a resident of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, which is not sufficient. R.

Doc. 1-1, p. 1. See Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396, 1399 (5th Cir. 1974) (“For diversity purposes, citizenship [of an

individual] means domicile; mere residence in the State is not sufficient.”). Regarding Defendants, Third Coast alleged

(1) that Cora-Quintero is a citizen of Texas, (2) that Action Resources is a “foreign corporation with both its place of

incorporation and principal place of business in the State of Alabama,” and (3) that Third Coast is a “foreign insurer

that is a Wisconsin corporation with its principal place of business in Wisconsin.” R. Doc. 1, ¶¶ VII – IX.

11 As to the amount in controversy, Third Coast explained that Plaintiff’s Petition for Damages “specifically asserts

‘[T]he damages sought by [Plaintiff] exceed the jurisdictional threshold for federal courts.’” R. Doc. 1, ¶V; see also

R. Doc. 1-1, p. 4.

12 R. Doc. 6. The sua sponte Notice and Order explained that the “citizenship of all other parties has been adequately

alleged and the amount in controversy appears met.”

13 R. Docs. 7 & 7-1.

14 R. Doc. 7-1, ¶¶ X & VIII, respectively. The proposed First Amended Notice of Removal did not comply with the

Court’s January 5, 2023 Notice and Order as it was not comprehensive.

Action Enterprise Holdings, LLC, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and (c) and related

authority. Because of this, the Court denied Third Coast’s First Motion for Leave and ordered

Third Coast to file another motion for leave to amend the Notice of Removal by no later than

January 13, 2023, which attached a proper, comprehensive amended Notice of Removal and which

properly alleged the citizenship of Action Resources.15

On January 13, 2023, Third Coast filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Amended

Notice of Removal, which requested an additional seven days to comply with the Court’s January

6, 2023 Order.16 The Court granted the motion, extending Third Coast’s deadline to January 20,

2023.17 However, the Court expressly instructed Third Coast’s counsel to review and familiarize

himself with the applicable law regarding citizenship allegations for limited liability companies.18

On January 20, 2023, Third Coast filed its Motion for Leave to File Second Amended

Notice of Removal (“Second Motion for Leave”), which attached a comprehensive, proposed

Second Amended Notice of Removal.19 As to the citizenship of Action Resources, Third Coast

alleges (1) that Action Resources’ sole member is Action Enterprise Holding, LLC; (2) whose sole

member is Bedrock Holdings Group, LLC (“Bedrock Holdings”); (3) which is “owned by the

following entities”20:

15 R. Doc. 8.

16 R. Doc. 9.

17 R. Doc. 10.

18 Id.

19 R. Docs. 11 & 11-2.

20 R. Doc. 11-2, ¶ VIII.

1. Brightwood Capital Fund III Holdings SPV-3, LLC, a Delaware limited liability

corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business in the State of New

York; Brightwood Capital Fund III Holdings SPV-3, LLC, is owned by Brightwood

Capital Fund II. Holdings. LP. a Delaware limited partnership with its headquarters

and principal place of business in the State of New York. The partners of Capitol Fund

III, Holdings LP. include Brightwood Capital Fund III Holdings, LP (general partner),

a limited partnership with its principal place of business in the State of New York and

Capitol Fund Managers, III, LLC (limited partner), a Delaware limited lability

corporation solely owned by an individual resident of the State of Florida.

2. Brightwood AR Holdings IITI-U, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the

laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in the State of New

York;

3. Brightwood AR Holdings II, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws

of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in the State of New York:

4. Brightwood Loan Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation with its

headquarters and principal place of business in the State of New York: Brightwood

Loan Services, LLC is solely owned by an individual resident of the State of Florida.

5. United Insurance Company of America, is an insurance corporation organized and

existing under the laws of the State of Illinois, with its principal place of business in

the State of Illinois:

6. Parkview Capital Credit, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of

the State of Maryland with its headquarters and principal place of business in the State

of Texas:

7. Joshua 1:8, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation with its headquarters and

principal place of business in the State of Alabama. Joshua 1:8, LLC is owned by

individuals who are residents of the States of Pennsylvania and Alabama, and none of

the individuals are residents the State of Louisiana:

8. Action Management Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation with its

headquarters and principal place of business in the State of Alabama. Action

Management Holdings, LLC is owned by individuals who are residents of the States of

Alabama, Texas, and Florida, and none of the individual owners are residents of the

State of Louisiana;

As such, Third Coast alleged that Action Resources is a citizen of “Alabama, Delaware, New York,

Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Texas for diversity purposes.””!

Despite Third Coast’s efforts to unwind the members of Actions Resources, the Court

nonetheless denied the Second Motion for Leave because (1) the statement that Action Enterprise

21 Id,

Holdings, LLC’s member, Bedrock Holdings, is “owned” by various entities is insufficient as it

does not establish whether those entities are members of Bedrock Holdings, and (2) the citizenship

allegations as to the following “owners” of Bedrock Holdings were deficient: (a) Brightwood

Capital Fund II Holdings SPV-3, LLC: (b) Brightwood Loan Services, LLC; (c) Joshua 1:8, LLC;

and (d) Action Management Holdings, LLC, as Third Coast did not identify each member of these

LLCs or state each member’s domicile (the “January 24 Order”).22 Unlike prior denials, Third

Coast was not ordered to file another motion for leave to amend the Notice of Removal to address

the noted deficiencies.23

One day after the January 24 Order, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Remand.24 She argues that

this matter must be remanded for the following two reasons: (1) Third Coast has failed to

sufficiently plead the citizenship of all parties as required to establish diversity jurisdiction under

§ 1332 despite multiple opportunities, and (2) Third Coast failed to obtain the consent of Cora-

Quintero when it removed this case on December 16, 2022 despite the fact that Cora-Quintero was

served, according to Plaintiff, via the Louisiana Long Arm statute on December 15, 2022, thus

violating the rule of unanimity.25 Third Coast opposes remand, arguing (1) that Plaintiff’s Motion

to Remand is untimely because it was filed forty days after removal even though the motion raises

two procedural defects which must be raised within thirty days of the filing of the Notice of

Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); (2) that Cora-Quintero’s consent was not required for removal

because he was not served at the time of removal and nothing in the Motion to Remand shows that

valid service on Cora-Quintero has occurred; and (3) that Third Coast has sufficiently pled the

22 R. Doc. 13, citing Perry v. Kiko Management Group, LLC, No. 21-203, 2021 WL 1950034, at *2, n. 19 (M.D. La.

May 14, 2021) (collecting cases) and Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396, 1399 (5th Cir. 1974).

23 Id.

24 R. Doc. 14.

25 R. Doc. 14-1. See also R. Doc. 25 (Plaintiff’s Reply, in which she reiterates the arguments made in her Motion to

Remand).

citizenship of all parties in the proposed Third Amended Notice of Removal attached to the Third

Motion for Leave.26

Five days later, Third Coast filed the Third Motion for Leave, which attached a proposed

Third Amended Notice of Removal that contained additional citizenship allegations to address the

deficiencies noted in the Court’s January 24 Order.27 Third Coast argues that 28 U.S.C. § 1653

permits it to “cure” defective citizenship allegations and, indeed, has been used by other federal

courts to allow a party to “properly allege the citizenship of limited liability companies.”28 Plaintiff

opposes the Third Motion for Leave, arguing that leave should be denied because (1) Third Coast

has been “freely granted leave to file two prior amendments” but is still unable to adequately

establish Action Resource’s citizenship, and (2) Third Coast attempts to cure a procedural defect

by alleging that Cora-Quintero consents to removal.29

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS

A. Removal Standard

A defendant may remove “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district

courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.”30 When original jurisdiction is based on

diversity of citizenship, the cause of action must be between “citizens of different States” and the

amount in controversy must exceed the “sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and

costs.”31 Subject matter jurisdiction must exist at the time of removal to federal court, based on the

facts and allegations contained in the complaint.32 The removal statute is strictly construed and

26 R. Doc. 17. As to the citizenship argument, Third Coast filed the Third Motion for Leave on January 30, 2023,

which was after the filing of the Motion to Remand but before Third Coast filed its opposition to the remand motion.

See R. Doc. 16.

27 R. Doc. 16.

28 R. Doc. 16.

29 R. Doc. 18.

30 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

31 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)-(a)(1).

32 St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998) (“jurisdictional facts must be

judged as of the time the complaint is filed”).

any doubt as to the propriety of removal should be resolved in favor of remand.33 The removing

party has the burden of proving federal diversity jurisdiction.34 Remand is proper if at any time the

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.35 The Court has a duty to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua

sponte.36

B. Analysis

Proper information regarding the citizenship of all parties and the amount in controversy

is necessary to establish the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, as well as to make the determination

required under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 regarding whether the case was properly removed to this Court.

Here, Third Coast seeks leave to amend its Notice of Removal to sufficiently allege the citizenship

of Action Resources, considering that the Court found the original allegations, and the prior

proposed curative allegations, defective. Although Third Coast has been given multiple

opportunities to cure the defective allegations, it appears that Third Coast has, at each turn,

endeavored to correct the allegations, and it has gotten closer each time. For example, the Court’s

January 24 Order explained that the citizenship allegations as to Action Resources were still

defective because the citizenship allegations as to Bedrock Holdings Group, LLC (the sole member

of Action Enterprise Holdings, LLC, which is the sole member of Action Resources) were

insufficient. Specifically, the January 24 Order explained that the allegations as to the following

members of Bedrock Holdings Group, LLC were inadequate for diversity purposes: Brightwood

Capital Fund II Holdings SPV-3, LLC, Brightwood Loan Services, LLC, Joshua 1:8, LLC and

33 Gasch v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 491 F.3d 278, 281-82 (5th Cir. 2007) (“[D]oubts regarding whether removal

jurisdiction is proper should be resolved against federal jurisdiction.”); Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335,

339 (5th Cir. 2000). (“Because removal raises significant federalism concerns, the removal statute is strictly construed

‘and any doubt as to the propriety of removal should be resolved in favor of remand.’”); Gutierrez v. Flores, 543 F.3d

248, 251 (5th Cir. 2008), quoting In re Hot–Hed, Inc., 477 F.3d 320, 323 (5th Cir. 2007).

34 Garcia v. Koch Oil Co. of Tex. Inc., 351 F.3d 636, 638 (5th Cir. 2003); Manguno v. Prudential Property and Cas.

Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002).

35 See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

36 Richard v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, No. 17-175, 2017 WL 8944429 (M.D. La. Nov. 30, 2017), citing

Gonzales v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012).

Action Management Holdings, LLC. In addressing these deficiencies, the proposed Third

Amended Notice of Removal alleges:

 that Brightwood Capital Fund II Holdings SPV-3, LLC is “100% owned by

Brightwood Capital Fund III Holdings, LP,” which is a “limited partnership” whose

“general partner” is “Brightwood Capital Fund Managers III, LLC,” whose “sole

member” is Sengal Selassie, a domiciliary of Florida;37

 that the sole member of Brightwood Loan Services, LLC is Sengal Selassie, a

domiciliary of Florida;38

 that the members of Joshua 1:8, LLC are (a) Charles Corpening, a domiciliary of

Pennsylvania, (b) Charles Corpening, II, a domiciliary of Pennsylvania, (c) Taylor

Pursell, a domiciliary of Alabama, (d) Christopher Harmon, a domiciliary of

Alabama, (e) David Hobbs, a domiciliary of Alabama, (f) John Milledge, a

domiciliary of Alabama, (g) Mark Murdryk, a domiciliary of Alabama, and (h) Troy

Pritchett, a domiciliary of Alabama; and

 that the members of Action Management Holdings, LLC are (a) Staci Pierce, a

domiciliary of Alabama; (b) Ryan Hunter, a domiciliary of Alabama; (c) Steve

Johnson, a domiciliary of Alabama; (d) Jeff Cowart, a domiciliary of Alabama; (e)

Rick Moore, a domiciliary of Texas; (f) Chris Kearns, a domiciliary of Texas; and

(g) Luke Frantz, a domiciliary of Florida.39

These allegations are sufficient to establish the citizenships of Brightwood Loan Services, LLC,

Joshua 1:8, LLC, and Action Management Holdings, LLC because Third Coast identified the

members of those entities and pleaded their respective citizenships as required by § 1332(a) and

(c).

However, regarding Brightwood Capital Fund II Holdings SPV-3, LLC’s citizenship, these

allegations are not sufficient. The allegations in the proposed Third Notice of Removal identify

Brightwood Capital Fund II Holdings SPV-3, LLC’s member, Brightwood Capital Fund III

Holdings, LP, and its general partner, Brightwood Capital Fund Managers III, LLC, whose sole

member, Sengal Selassie, is domiciled in Florida. But, the proposed Third Amended Notice of

37 R. Doc. 16-2, ¶ XIII(1).

38 R. Doc. 16-2, ¶ XIII(4).

39 R. Doc. 16-2, ¶ XIII(8)

Removal stops short of establishing Brightwood Capital Fund III Holdings, LP’s (and, thus,

Brightwood Capital Fund II Holdings SPV-3, LLC’s) citizenship because it does not identify

Brightwood Capital Fund III Holdings, LP’s limited partner or allege the limited partner’s

citizenship in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and (c). Because the citizenship allegations as

to Action Resource are still deficient, the Court will deny Third Coast’s Third Motion for Leave.

Nonetheless, 28 U.S.C. § 1653 provides that “[d]effective allegations of jurisdiction may

be amended, upon terms, in the trial or appellate courts.” “Section 1653 ‘is liberally construed to

allow a party to cure technical defects, including the failure to specifically allege the citizenship

of parties.’”40 Amendments under § 1653 may occur even after the thirty-day period for removing

an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) has expired.41 While courts may allow amendments under §

1653 to cure “defective jurisdictional allegations,” such amendments cannot be used to cure

“missing” jurisdictional allegations or procedural defects.42 Indeed, numerous courts, including

this one, have allowed amendments under § 1653 so that a party may “identify the citizenship of

the members of partners of an unincorporated entity,” such as an LLC, where the original notice

of removal fails to do so.43 As the Fifth Circuit explained, “[m]otions to amend under Section 1653

40 Moore v. Gladiator Events, LLC, No. 15-1877, 2015 WL 5459625, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 15, 2015), citing Moreno

Energy, Inc. v. Marathon Oil Co., 884 F.Supp.2d 577, 586-87 (S.D. Tex. 2012) (citations omitted).

41 Id. at * 2 (collecting cases).

42 Id., citing Grand Texas Homes, Inc. v. Am. Safety Indem. Co., No. 12-1773, 2012 WL 5355958, at *3 (N.D. Tex.

Oct. 30, 2012) and Sanders v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., No. 10-979, 2010 WL 3282978, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2010).

43 See, e.g., MidCap Media Finance, L.L.C. v. Pathway Data, Inc., 929 F.3d 310 (5th Cir. 2019) (remanding case to

district court to allow amendment of jurisdiction allegations under § 1653 because “there [was] some reason to believe

that jurisdiction exists”); Mullins v. Testamerica Inc., 300 Fed.Appx. 259 (5th Cir. 2008) (remanding case to the

district court so that a limited partnership could amend its notice of removal to address “deficient allegations of

diversity”—chiefly, the identity and citizenship of the partners); Million v. Exxon Mobil Corp./ExxonMobil Chemical

Co., No. 17-60, 2017 WL 11015877 (M.D. La. June 6, 2017) (ordering plaintiff, pursuant to § 1653, to seek leave to

file an amended complaint “providing the citizenship of Brock Services, LLC” and other defendants); Brown & Root

Indus. Services, LLC v. Nelson, No. 17-361, 2017 WL 7693163 (M.D. La. Oct. 31, 2017) (requiring defendant to

“amend his allegations regarding Plaintiff’s citizenship [pursuant to § 1653] to determine whether original jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 exists”); Moore, 2015 WL 5459625 (citing § 1653 and permitting a defendant to amends

its notice of removal to allege a defendant limited liability company’s member and the member’s citizenship, among

other things); Moreno, 884 F.Supp.2d 577 (finding that leave to amend notice of removal to adequately allege identify

members or partners of unincorporated association defendants and allege the members’ or partners’ respective

citizenships was appropriate under § 1653); Alvarez v. Aldi (Texas), L.L.C., No. 13-4122, 2014 WL 1694901 (N.D.

may be considered when ‘our discretionary examination of the record as a whole establishes at

least a substantial likelihood that jurisdiction exists.’”44

Although Third Coast has not established complete diversity, the parties whose citizenships

have been sufficiently pleaded are diverse. Additionally, the Court’s “discretionary examination

of the record as a whole” shows “at least a substantial likelihood that jurisdiction exists.” Under

these facts and considering that § 1653 permits a party to amend defective allegations of

jurisdiction, such as the failure to adequately allege the citizenship of a limited liability company

in a notice of removal, the Court will give Third Coast one last opportunity under § 1653 to cure

the defective allegations of jurisdiction. Third Coast will be ordered to file a Motion for Leave to

Amend within seven days of the date of this Order, that attaches a proposed, comprehensive

Amended Notice of Removal that adequately alleges the citizenship of all parties. If leave is

granted by the Court, Third Coast’s Amended Notice of Removal will become the operative Notice

of Removal in this matter. Third Coast is advised that this is its last opportunity to amend the

Notice of Removal. Failure to fully comply with this Ruling and Order will result in a sua sponte

recommendation that this case be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Because Third Coast will be given a final opportunity to amend its Notice of Removal, and

because the Court has not discussed, much less ruled on, any purported procedural deficiencies

raised in Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand or in Third Coast’s opposition to that Motion, the Court

will deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to reurge a Motion

to Remand that addresses the allegations as set forth in any Amended Notice of Removal filed by

Third Coast.45

Tex. Apr. 28, 2014) (denying plaintiff’s motion to remand and noting the allegation that the limited liability company

was a “citizen of Illinois” was “of no moment” because such allegation “may be corrected by amendment” under §

1653).

44 Swindol v. Aurora Flight Sciences Corp., 805 F.3d 516, 518 (5th Cir. 2015).

45 See Moore v. Miller, No. 15-180, 2016 WL 447152 (M.D. La. Jan. 14, 2016), report and recommendation adopted,

Accordingly, for the reasons explained above,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Notice of Removal,46

filed by Defendant Third Coast Insurance Company, is DENIED for failure to adequately allege

the citizenship of all parties.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by no later than Wednesday, September 6, 2023,

Third Coast shall file a Motion for Leave to Amend, which attaches a proposed, comprehensive

amended Notice of Removal that includes all of Third Coast’s allegations, as revised

supplemented, and/or amended, and which properly alleges the citizenships of all parties, as

explained in this and other Orders.47 Failure to timely file a Motion for Leave to Amend and/or

to adequately allege the citizenship of any party will result in a sua sponte recommendation

that this case be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Remand,48 filed by Plaintiff Terriana

Damond, is DENIED without prejudice to her ability to reurge a Motion to Remand addressing

the allegations set forth in any Amended Notice of Removal filed by Third Coast.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on August 30, 2023.

S

ERIN WILDER-DOOMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2016 WL 451353 (M.D. La. Feb. 4, 2016) (finding that a plaintiff’s motion to remand raising a procedural defect with

removal was timely filed because it was filed within thirty days of the date the removing defendant filed a court-

ordered amended notice of removal); Smith v. Marquette Transportation Co., L.L.C., No. 16-1545 (W.D. La. Aug. 1,

2017), report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 3648321 (W.D. La. Aug. 21, 2017) (finding that “an amended

Notice of Removal should trigger a new 30-day period in which a Plaintiff can move to remand.”).

46 R. Doc. 16.

47 See R. Docs. 6, 8, 10, 13.

48 R. Doc. 14.