Batiste

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JOYCE BATISTE CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 25-2427

DG LOUISIANA, LLC, ET AL. SECTION: “G”(4)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is Plaintiff Joyce Batiste (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant DG Louisiana,

LLC’s (“Defendant”) Joint Motion to Remand.1 On December 3, 2025, Defendant removed this

matter to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.2 Plaintiff now stipulates that her damages

do not exceed $75,000.3 Therefore, considering the motion, the record, and the applicable law, the

Court grants the motion.

On or about January 19, 2024, Plaintiff was a patron at the Dollar General Store in

Hammond, Louisiana.4 Plaintiff alleges that she tripped over a large object on the floor, causing

her to fall and suffer bodily injuries.5 On October 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a petition for damages

against Dollar General and ABC Insurance Company in the 21st Judicial District Court for the

Parish of Tangipahoa.6 On August 29, 2025 Plaintiff filed an Amended Petition, substituting Dollar

1 Rec. Doc. 5.

2 Rec. Doc. 1

3 Rec. Doc. 5 at 1.

4 Rec. Doc. 1-2 at 2.

5 Id.

6 Rec. Doc. 1-2.

1

General Store for DG Louisiana, LLC and adding Stephen Leblanc, the manager of the Dollar

General Store at issue, as defendants.7 On December 3, 2025, Defendant removed the matter to

this Court asserting subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.8 No attorney has made an

appearance for Defendant ABC Insurance Company or Stephen Leblanc. On December 8, 2025,

Plaintiff and Defendant filed the instant joint motion to remand.9

Louisiana law prohibits plaintiffs from specifying the numerical value of their damages,

the removing party must prove that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 by a preponderance

of the evidence.10 First, the district court inquires whether it is facially apparent that the claims are

likely to exceed $75,000 and, if so, removal is proper.11 When making the “facially apparent”

determination, the correct procedure is to look exclusively at the face of the complaint and ask

whether the amount in controversy is likely to exceed $75,000.12 If it is not facially apparent that

the claims are likely to exceed $75,000, “the district court can then require parties to submit

summary-judgment-type evidence, relevant to the amount in controversy at the time of removal.”13

Once the removing party makes this showing by a preponderance of the evidence, “removal is

deemed proper unless the plaintiffs show to a legal certainty that their recovery will not exceed the

7 Rec. Doc. 1-7.

8 Rec. Doc. 1.

9 Rec. Doc. 5.

10 Manguno v. Prudential Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, (5th Cir. 2002) (citing De Aguilar v. Boeing

Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1412 (5th Cir. 1995)); Gebbia, 233 F.3d at 882; Allen v. R & R Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335

(5th Cir.1995).

11 Manguno, 276 F.3d at 723; Allen, 63 F.3d at 1335.

12 Allen, 63 F.3d at 1336.

13 Id.; see also Manguno, 276 F.3d at 723.

2

jurisdictional amount.”!* The removal statute is strictly construed and any doubt as to the propriety

of removal should be resolved in favor of remand.’ The removing party has the burden of proving

federal diversity jurisdiction.'© Remand is proper if at any time the court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction.”

Here, there is no dispute by the parties that amount in controversy is less than $75,000. For

that reason, the Court finds that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case on the

basis of diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Remand!® is GRANTED. The

above-captioned action is REMANDED to the 21st Judicial District Court for the Parish of

Tangipahoa.

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 10th day of December, 2025.

NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4 Fairchild v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 907 F.Supp. 969, 970 (M.D. La. 1995) (citing De

Aguilar, 47 F.3d at 1412).

‘5 Gasch v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 491 F.3d 278, 281-82 (Sth Cir. 2007).

‘6 Garcia v. Koch Oil Co. of Tex. Inc., 351 F.3d 636, 638 (5th Cir. 2003).

7 See, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

'8 Rec. Doc. 5.