# Ammar Investments, LLC v. Century Surety Company

> District Court, E.D. Louisiana · March 19, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10826261

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** March 19, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10826261

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

AMMAR INVESTMENTS, LLC, et al. CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO: 24-01835

CENTURY SURETY COMPANY SECTION: T (5)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiffs Ammar Investments LLC and
Fouad & Faris, Inc. R. Doc. 5. Defendant Century Surety Company has filed a response in
opposition. R. Doc. 7. Plaintiffs have filed a reply in support of their motion. R. Doc. 8. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the Motion to Remand.
BACKGROUND
This suit arises from the Hurricane Ida claim of Plaintiffs for damage to certain property at
2986 River Road, Garyville, LA 70051 (the “Property”) under Policy No. CCP 994206 (the
“Policy”). R. Doc. 1-1. The Policy affords only Building coverage to the Property. The Policy does
not afford Business Personal Property (“BPP”) coverage to the Property. Plaintiffs instituted an
original action against Defendant on August 15, 2023, in the 40th Judicial District Court for the
Parish of St. John the Baptist. Defendant answered Plaintiffs’ action on November 3, 2023. Under
the Case Management Order applicable to Hurricane Ida cases, Plaintiffs were required to produce
Initial Disclosures on July 15, 2024, which included information regarding the damages Plaintiffs
1
sought. After receipt of these disclosures, on July 23, 2024, Defendant removed this matter to the
Eastern District of Louisiana, asserting that the damages identified by Plaintiffs exceed the amount
in controversy required for federal subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity. Plaintiffs have
moved for remand asserting the removal was untimely and that at the time of the removal, the
amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000.
LAW and ANALYSIS
A defendant may remove “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district
courts of the United States have original jurisdiction ... to the district court of the United States for
the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)-(a)(1). A civil action that is
otherwise removable based on diversity jurisdiction under § 1332(a), “may not be removed if any
of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which
such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). Subject matter jurisdiction must exist at the time
of removal to federal court and be based on the facts and allegations contained in the complaint.
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 ...”). “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 Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375,
2
377 (1994)). Thus, remand is proper if at any time the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 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). The
removing party has the burden of proving federal diversity jurisdiction. Garcia v. Koch Oil Co. of
Tex. Inc., 351 F.3d 636, 638 (5th Cir. 2003). 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).
The uncertainty regarding the amount in controversy arises in this case because “Louisiana
prohibits plaintiffs from claiming a specific dollar amount of damages.” Felton v. Greyhound
Lines, Inc., 324 F.3d 771, 773 (5th Cir.2003). In this Circuit, “[w]hen the plaintiff's complaint does
not allege a specific amount of damages, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the

evidence that the amount in controversy” is sufficient to meet the statutory requirements. De
Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 11 F.3d 55, 58 (5th Cir .1993). The defendant satisfies its burden by either
(1) “demonstrating that it is ‘facially apparent’ that the claims are likely above $75,000,” or (2)
“setting forth facts in controversy-preferably in the removal petition, but sometimes by affidavit-
that support the finding of the requisite amount.” Simon v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 193 F.3d 848,
850 (5th Cir.1999) (citation omitted). “Because Louisiana plaintiffs are not limited to recovery of
the damages requested in their pleadings, a plaintiff must affirmatively renounce the right to accept
a judgment in excess of $75,000 for his pre-removal state court pleadings and stipulations to bind
him.” Davis v. State Farm Fire & Cas., Nos. 06-560, et al., 2006 WL 1581272, at *2 (E.D. La.

June 7, 2006).
3
If the initial pleading is not removable, 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. 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(3).
Plaintiffs have moved for remand asserting that the evidence attached to Defendant’s
Notice of Removal does not prove that Plaintiffs’ damages exceed $75,000. Plaintiffs assert
removal was based solely on Plaintiffs’ representation in the Case Management Order Hurricane
Disclosure. In that disclosure, Plaintiffs identified the following expenses: Roof - $29,600.00 and
Generator - $13,083.94. The disclosure also noted: “Plaintiff will supplement upon receipt of
additional documents.” Plaintiffs argue that the total is not $42,683.94, but rather $36,683.94

minus the $6,000 deductible. Furthermore, assuming they could seek bad faith damages and
attorney’s fees, the amount, exclusive of interest and costs, would total $73,365.41. Plaintiffs assert
they are seeking no damages other than what was listed in Section D of the Initial Disclosure, such
that the Defendant has failed to carry its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Plaintiffs argue they were no longer seeking either the
independent adjuster estimate or the BPP losses at the time of the removal based on their Initial
Disclosure under the CMO.
Defendant, however, argues the contractual claim totals $74,359.59 when including the
independent adjuster’s estimate of $3,442.63, the roof repair and generator invoices, plus

$34,233.02 in alleged BPP losses, less the policy deductible. With penalties and attorney fees, the
4
amount totals $154,350.69. Defendants further note that Plaintiffs have not stipulated that their
damages do not exceed $75,000.00. Finally, Defendant avers that removal was timely under 28
U.S.C. §1446(b)(3) because it was filed within 30 days of the initial disclosure and within one year
of Plaintiffs’ suit.
At the time the suit was filed, Defendant asserts, there was not sufficient information to
indicate the claim exceeded $75,000. Based on the adjuster’s investigation and the Petition for
Damages, the available evidence suggested that Plaintiffs claimed $31,675.65 in contractual
damage under the Policy ($3,442.63 IA estimate plus $34,233.02 alleged BPP losses, less the
Policy’s $6,000 (2%) Windstorm or Hail Percentage Deductible). Plaintiffs’ claim for extra-
contractual penalties and attorney’s fees would have only amounted to another $31,517.32

($15,837.83 penalties and $15,679.49 attorney’s fees). Thus, at the time the suit was filed, the total
amount in controversy was at most $63,192.97; and as a result, the suit could not properly be
removed.
Defendant, however, avers that it only discovered that the claim exceeded the jurisdictional
limit of $75,000 upon the Initial Disclosure made on July 15, 2024, in which Plaintiffs listed the
$29,600 roof repair estimate and the $13,083.94 generator invoice. Defendant contends these new
documents indicated the amount in controversy now totaled $154,350.69, which clearly exceeds
the $75,000 jurisdictional limitation. Because Defendant filed its Notice of Removal on July 23,
2024, the filing was within 30 days of receipt of the “other paper” indicating the amount in

controversy exceeded $75,000 and within one year from Plaintiffs’ August 15, 2023 filing of suit.
5
As such, Defendant maintains its removal of this action was timely under 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(3).
This Court agrees. Although Plaintiffs make much of the fact that the Policy does not
provide for BPP losses, and thus argue they are not seeking such compensation, Plaintiffs
nevertheless provided estimates of BPP losses to the independent adjuster. Looking only at the
BPP losses coupled with the adjuster’s estimate, Defendant is correct that at the time of the filing
of the suit the amount in controversy was less than $75,000. But when Plaintiffs, apparently for
the first time, indicated in the initial disclosure that they were seeking damages for the roof and
generator, Defendant was put on notice that the claim could possibly total more than $75,000.
Even if the Court discounts the BPP losses, Plaintiffs’ recovery potentially includes the amount
put forth by the adjuster, $3,442.63, which when added to Plaintiffs’ own calculation of the
damages, $73,365.41, clearly exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Plaintiffs make much of the
Initial Disclosure and basically equate it to a stipulation that they were seeking only those damages
and no other. However, the Court can discern no restriction in the Initial Disclosure that would so
limit Plaintiffs’ recovery. Accordingly, the Court will exercise diversity jurisdiction over this
matter.
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Remand is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 18th day of March 2025.
Conte Gand Gud
GREG GERARD GUIDRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10826261. Public record. Not legal advice.