The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JARRED SAUCIER CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 25-1455
LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC, et al. SECTION: “G”(3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff Jarred Saucier’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Remand.1 Plaintiff
requests that the case be remanded to the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of
Jefferson.2 Plaintiff asserts there is not complete diversity amongst the parties to support
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as Defendant Earl “Doe,” now known to be Earl
Bartholomew, and Plaintiff are both citizens of Louisiana.3 Plaintiff also requests that attorney’s
fees and costs be awarded for the improper removal.4 Defendant Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC
(“Lowes”) does not oppose the request to remand, but argues that attorney’s fees and costs should
not be awarded to Plaintiff.5 Lowes contends that attorney’s fees and costs are not warranted
because at the time of the removal the petition only identified an unnamed, unserved defendant
sued under a fictious name, who Plaintiff purported was a resident of Louisiana.6
1 Rec. Doc. 6.
2 Rec. Doc. 6-1.
3 Id. at 2.
4 Id. at 14.
5 Rec. Doc. 9 at 1.
6 Id.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), “[a]n order remanding the case may require payment of
just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.”7
The Fifth Circuit has made clear that “a district court is not divested of jurisdiction to award
attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Section 1447(c) after a remand has been certified.”8 The
decision to award attorney’s fees under Section 1447(c) is within the sound discretion of the
Court.9 The “mere determination that removal was improper” does not automatically entitle a
plaintiff to an award of fees.10 Rather, in the absence of “unusual circumstances,” this Court may
award attorney’s fees under Section 1447(c) where “the removing party lacks an objectively
reasonable basis for seeking removal.”11
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that attorney’s fees are warranted in this case. At the time of
removal, the petition only identified an unnamed, unserved defendant sued under a fictious name,
who Plaintiff purported was a resident of Louisiana. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1), “[i]n
determining whether a civil action is removable on the basis of [diversity jurisdiction], the
citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded.” Therefore, Plaintiff
has not shown that Lowes lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.
7 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
8 Coward v. AC & S, Inc., 91 F. App’x 919, 922 (5th Cir. 2004).
9 Darville v. Tidewater Marine Serv., Inc., No. 15-6441, 2016 WL 1402837, at *8 (E.D. La. Apr. 11, 2016)
(Brown, J.) (citing Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 140 (2005)).
10 Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Sabre, Inc., 694 F.3d 539, 541–42 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted).
11 Id. at 542 (internal citations omitted).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand”? is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED to the extent it requests the case be
remanded. The motion is DENIED to the extent it requests that costs and attorney’s fees be
awarded to Plaintiffs counsel.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is hereby remanded to the Twenty-Fourth
Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana for further proceedings.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this _3rd_ day of September, 2025.
NANNETTE JOLIV E BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Rec. Doc. 6.