# Conner v. Doordash, Inc.

> District Court, E.D. Louisiana · July 1, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11088070

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** July 1, 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/11088070

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a letter that recited plaintiff’s alleged injuries, computed the alleged special damages suffered, and then set out a demand was “not plainly a sham,” explaining that there was “no indicia of posturing or a lack of seriousness in the communication of [the] offer”
- holding a plaintiff’s three-sentence demand letter that sought 50 times the amount offered by defendant with no explanation for higher offer constituted an “other paper” that triggered the removal clock

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

*
ERMIA CONNER * CIVIL ACTION
*
VERSUS * NO. 25-509
*
DOORDASH, INC, ET AL. * SECTION “L”
*
*
ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is a Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiff Ermia Conner (“Plaintiff”). R.
Doc. 9. Defendant DoorDash, Inc. (“DoorDash”) opposes the motion. R. Doc. 11. After
considering the record, briefing, and applicable law, the Court now rules as follows.
I. BACKGROUND
On or about September 16, 2023, Plaintiff alleges that Bri’Che Xiang Kirklin—a DoorDash
driver operating within the course and scope of her employment—failed to yield to traffic and
struck Plaintiff’s vehicle when attempting to turn right on Elysian Fields Avenue in New Orleans,
Louisiana. R. Doc. 1-2. Plaintiff subsequently filed a personal injury suit in state court, asserting
a negligence claim against DoorDash under a theory of vicarious liability as well as its insurer
Crum & Forster Insurance Company. Id. On March 14, 2025, DoorDash removed the case to this
Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. R. Doc. 1. DoorDash claims that removal is proper
because the amount in controversy was met when DoorDash received a written demand on March
5, 2025, indicating Plaintiff’s damages exceeded $75,000. Id. at 4. Regarding diversity of
citizenship, DoorDash asserts that complete diversity exists because Plaintiff is a citizen of
Louisiana; DoorDash is a citizen of California and Delaware; and Crum and Forster Specialty
Insurance Company is a citizen of Delaware and New Jersey. Id. at 3.
II. PRESENT MOTION
In the present motion, Plaintiff moves to have this case remanded back to state court on the
grounds that DoorDash’s removal of this matter was untimely. R. Doc. 9-1. While she concedes
that the requirement of complete diversity is met here, Plaintiff argues that DoorDash was required

to remove this case within thirty days of receiving her initial settlement demand letter via email on
December 19, 2024. Id. This letter outlined Plaintiff’s medical diagnosis and expenses to date
totaling $15,165.50 as well as known future medical expenses totaling $9,920. R. Doc. 9-3 at 1-2.
Additionally, the letter listed several Louisiana state court cases involving lumbar injuries from
car collisions that resulted in awarded damages between $300,000-$1,000,000. Id. at 2-3. Lastly,
the letter included an offer to settle the case for $195,000 “inclusive of all damages in order to
resolve her claims at this juncture.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff contends that this information, taken together,
made it “unequivocally clear and certain” to DoorDash that she is seeking more than $75,000 in
damages. R. Doc. 9-1. As such, it is her position that the December 19, 2024 demand letter
qualifies as an “other paper” under 29 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3), and that DoorDash had thirty days

from that date—i.e., January 19, 2025—to remove this case but did not do so until March 14, 2025,
making the filing of its notice of removal untimely by fifty-four days.1 Id.
In opposition, DoorDash asserts that Plaintiff’s December 19, 2024 demand letter amount
of $195,000 was only “puffing and posturing” and otherwise unsupported by evidence, such that
it “did not demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 threshold.” R. Doc.
11 at 2, 6. More specifically, it argues that Plaintiff’s listed amount of damages and treatment up
until that point were “insufficient to support the demand” and thus not “unequivocally clear and

1 In the alternative, Plaintiff argues that removal was untimely because the thirty-day window began when
Defendant was served with the Amended Petition on January 29, 2025. R. Doc. 9-1 at 5. The Court, however, need
not reach this issue as explained below.
certain” for the purposes of removal. Id. Instead, DoorDash contends that its thirty-day time
window for removal began to run at the earliest on March 5, 2025, when it received via email
Plaintiff’s last settlement letter. Id. It claims that the March 5, 2025 letter, rather than Plaintiff’s
previous one, triggered the removal clock because Plaintiff had more recently provided DoorDash

with written answers to interrogatories that made clear that she was claiming additional damages
in lost wages and future loss of earning capacity. Id. Under this interpretation of the facts,
DoorDash would have then had until April 5, 2025 to remove the case, which it appears to have
met due to the filing of its notice of removal on March 14, 2025. Id. DoorDash thus requests this
Court to find it has jurisdiction and deny Plaintiff’s request for remand. Id. at 6.
III. APPLICABLE LAW
The applicable removal statute 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.” 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). 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 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 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). Thus, 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 removing party

has the burden of proving federal diversity jurisdiction. Garcia v. Koch Oil Co. Tex. Inc., 351 F.3d
636, 638 (5th Cir. 2003). A defendant attempting to remove a case to federal court may
demonstrate the amount in controversy by “(1) it is apparent from the face of the petition that the
claims are likely to exceed $75,000, or, alternatively, (2) the defendant sets forth ‘summary
judgement type evidence’ of facts in controversy that support a finding of the requisite amount.”
Manguno, 276 F.3d at 723.
In circumstances such as the case here where the plaintiff’s initial pleading itself does not
indicate the matter is removable at first instance, 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) provides that “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.”2 Importantly, courts have

interpreted the statute’s “ascertained” requirement to mean that the “other paper” at issue must be
“unequivocally clear and certain” as to the amount in controversy in order to trigger the thirty-day
removal period. Bosky v. Kroger Tex., LP, 288 F.3d 208, 211-12 (5th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, the
other paper “must result from a voluntary act of a plaintiff which gives the defendant notice of the
changed circumstances which now supports federal jurisdiction.” Addo v. Globe Life & Accident
Ins. Co., 230 F.3d 759, 762 (5th Cir. 2000). Indeed, “evidence [produced by] the defendant” or

2 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s initial state court petition does not state a specific amount of damages that
would have indicated this matter meets the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction as required
by La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 893(A)(1), which provides that “[n]o specific monetary amount of damages shall be
included in the allegations or partyer for relief of any original, amended, or incidental demand.”
“the defendant’s subjective knowledge” cannot begin the clock for removal. S.W.S. Erectors, Inc.
v. Infax, Inc., 72 F.3d 489, 494 (5th Cir. 1996). Courts have held that various forms of post-petition
exchanges between counsel constitute “other paper” that may serve to start the removal clock,
including emails, settlement demand letters, and responses to discovery. Addo, 230 F.3d at 762;

Chapman v. Powermatic, Inc., 969 F.2d 160, 164 (5th Cir. 1992); Credeur v. York Claim Serv.,
No. 13-cv-01367, 2013 WL 5935477, at *5 (W.D. La. Sept. 9, 2013).
IV. ANALYSIS
The outcome of the present motion turns on whether Plaintiff’s December 19, 2024 letter
triggered the thirty-day removal period, such that DoorDash’s notice of removal filed on March
14, 2025 was untimely. With this in mind, the Court proceeds accordingly.
a. Plaintiff’s December 19, 2024 Letter Was Not “Plainly a Sham” and Thus
Triggered the Thirty-Day Removal Period.

Plaintiff claims that her initial December 19, 2024 settlement demand letter is an “other
paper” that was “unequivocally clear and certain” as to the amount in controversy. Upon inspection
of this document, the Court agrees. Indeed, the December 19, 2024 letter plainly states that Plaintiff
is seeking to settle her claims for $195,000, which is clearly in excess of the $75,000 threshold for
diversity jurisdiction. R. Doc. 9-3. However, the removal inquiry here does not end in such short
fashion. Unlike other forms of correspondence that qualify as “other paper” under § 1446(b)(3),
post-complaint settlement demand letters have an extra procedural hurdle that must be surpassed
in order to effectively initiate the removal time window. As explained by the Fifth Circuit in its
lead case on this issue—Addo v. Globe Life & Accident Ins. Co., a post-complaint letter may be
used as evidence to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirements, so long as the letter is “not
plainly a sham.” 230 F.3d at 762. In other words, “[s]ettlement demand letters evidence the amount
in controversy insofar as they represent a plaintiff’s actual valuation of her claim.” Marullo v.
Dollar Gen. Corp., No. 14-01131, 2014 WL 3587879, at *2 (E.D. La. July 21, 2014). As such, a
demand that constitutes “mere posturing” and “does not reflect the honest value of the case” will
not trigger the removal period. Russell v. Home State Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., No. 03-1911, 2003 WL
22697179, at *2 (E.D. La. Nov. 10, 2003); see also Guidry v. Dow Chem. Co., No. 19-12233, 2019

WL 4509490, at *1 (E.D. La. Sept. 19, 2019) (speculative and hyperbolic demand did not
automatically trigger the removal period).
On this note, DoorDash seemingly attempts to characterize Plaintiff’s December 19, 2024
letter as “plainly a sham” that did not serve to start the removal period, noting the lack of
evidentiary support for the stated demand. In light of the applicable case law, however, the Court
must disagree. Contrary to DoorDash’s position, the Court notes that whether a plaintiff has
definitive evidentiary support to back up his or her demand is not dispositive in evaluating whether
the letter is “plainly a sham.” See Drouilhet v. Berkowitz, No. 24-367, 2024 WL 1231328, at *5
(E.D. La. Mar. 22, 2024). Indeed, such a requirement would be absurd given Plaintiff bears no
burden to prove her damages at this stage of the proceedings, and DoorDash notably fails to cite

any case law that stands for such a proposition. Id. Rather, courts in this circuit have found the
more appropriate inquiry to be that settlement demands are not “plainly a sham” where a plaintiff’s
letter: (1) conveys seriousness in the communication of the offer, (2) recites their alleged injuries,
(3) computes their alleged damages suffered, and (4) sets out a final settlement demand. Cole v.
Knowledge Learning Corp., No. 09-2760, 2009 WL 1269591, at *4 (E.D. La. May 6, 2009), aff’d,
416 F. App’x 437 (5th Cir. 2011) (holding that a letter that recited plaintiff’s alleged injuries,
computed the alleged special damages suffered, and then set out a demand was
“not plainly a sham,” explaining that there was “no indicia of posturing or a lack of seriousness in
the communication of [the] offer”); see also Russell, 2003 WL 22697179, at *2 (holding that a
settlement demand was not plainly a sham where plaintiff’s counsel offered to settle the case at
$150,000 and informed the defendant that he has “gotten as much as $175,000” for similar
injuries”). As explained above, Plaintiff’s December 19, 2024 letter here does exactly this in
leading up to her $195,000 settlement request. R. Doc. 9-3. In fact, the letter goes even further in

support of the demand than what is typically required by citing multiple state court cases where
plaintiffs have received damages awards totaling over $300,000 under similar facts. See Addo, 230
F.3d at 762 (holding a plaintiff’s three-sentence demand letter that sought 50 times the amount
offered by defendant with no explanation for higher offer constituted an “other paper” that
triggered the removal clock). These efforts, the Court finds, are more than sufficient to indicate to
DoorDash that Plaintiff’s demand was a serious offer that was beyond that of mere posturing or
puffery, “relaying an accurate reflection of what [she] believes the case to be worth.” Russell, 2003
WL 22697179, at *3; see also Waters v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., LLC, No. 18-12419, 2019 WL
1785610, at *1 (E.D. La. Apr. 24, 2019) (holding “[f]ederal courts give significant weight to the
value plaintiffs attach to their claims”).

A quick comparison between Plaintiff’s initial December 19, 2024 demand letter and her
March 5, 2025 demand letter that DoorDash claims actually triggered the removal period lends
further support to the Court’s reasoning. Both the December and March settlement letters are
almost exactly alike and set forth the same demand amount of $195,000. Compare R. Doc. 9-3
with R. Doc. 1-3. The only difference is that DoorDash had the benefit of Plaintiff’s discovery
responses by the time it received the March 5, 2025 letter, which it alleges incorporates new
damages. But the inclusion of these new damages is immaterial in light of the Court’s finding that
Plaintiff’s December 19, 2024 letter represented a good-faith offer to settle that was grounded in
case law and was thus not “plainly a sham.” DoorDash waiting until March 14, 2025 to remove
this case when it could have just as easily ascertained from Plaintiff's December letter that her
damages exceeded $75,000 is not in spirit with the removal statute, which is designed to
“encourage prompt resort to federal court when a defendant first learns that the plaintiff's demand
exceeds the federal jurisdictional limit.” Addo, 230 F.3d at 762. Accordingly, the Court concludes
that Plaintiff's December 19, 2024 letter constitutes an “other paper” under § 1446(b)(3) that
triggered the thirty-day removal clock on that date, making the filing of DoorDash’s notice of
removal on March 14, 2025 untimely.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Ermia Conner’s Motion to Remand, R. Doc. 9,
is GRANTED. This case is remanded back to state court for further proceedings.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this Ist day of July, 2025.

We Cor

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11088070. Public record. Not legal advice.