Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DAIGLE, HIMEL, DAIGLE CIVIL ACTION

PHYSICAL THERAPY CENTER

AND REHABILITATION, INC.

NO: 25-2147

V.

UNIVERSAL ADCOM, LLC AND SECTION C (1)

JIM GILDENBLATT

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is plaintiff, Daigle, Himel, Daigle Physical Therapy Center and

Rehabilitation, Inc.’s Motion to Remand (R. Doc. 20). Because the Court finds that defendants,

Universal AdCom, LLC and Jim Gildenblatt’s (collectively, “AdCom”) removal was untimely,

Daigle’s motion to remand is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

Between August 12, 2022 and January 3, 2023, Daigle filed 28 separate lawsuits against

AdCom.1 Among other claims, the lawsuits alleged fraud in the execution of an advertising

contract entered between Daigle and AdCom, and sought return of amounts paid, attorney fees and

costs.2 19 of the lawsuits were filed in the 17th Judicial District Court, Lafourche Parish, while the

remaining nine were filed in Thibodaux City Court.3 Each lawsuit involved one or more

withdrawals of money from a Daigle account by AdCom.4 Each lawsuit involved Daigle and

AdCom. In fact, the lawsuits are nearly identical, involving the same primary parties, the same key

witnesses, the same business relationship, and the same legal theories, with the only material

1 See R. Doc. 2-1.

2 See id.

3 See id.

4 See R. Doc. 1-1.

difference being the amount claimed in each lawsuit. 5 No single lawsuit claimed more than

$36,000.6 It is undisputed that the total of all claims in all 28 lawsuits exceeds $400,000.

On February 16, 2023, AdCom filed a motion to consolidate the 17th JDC lawsuits

alleging:

1) All lawsuits involve the same parties, key witnesses, and subject matter. The

lawsuits all arise out of the same business relationships and same type of

transactions.

2) The only difference between the claims is the amount of the billing statements,

which varied month to month.

3) The only difference in parties is the banking institution defendants, Synergy and

American Express Company, who do not oppose consolidation.

4) The “exact same” issues of fact and law predominate over all the lawsuits

because the claims are the same claims asserted by both sides.

5) The primary parties are identical.

6) The causes of action are identical.

7) The defenses are identical.

8) The petitions are identical, except for the amount and date.

9) A determination in one lawsuit will very likely be determinative of all the other

lawsuits.

10) The sum total of the lawsuit transactions is approximately $389,724.50.

11) If consolidated, the amount in dispute will exceed the jurisdictional limit for the

lawsuits in City Court.7

In response, an agreed order was signed on August 18, 2023, consolidating the 19 pending

17th JDC lawsuits.8 The order was “[b]ased on the stipulation [of] all parties” who “agreed to the

5 R. Doc. 20-1 at 5; R. Doc. 25 at 2.

6 Id. at 11-16.

7 R. Doc. 20-2 at 4-5.

8 R. Doc. 20-3 at 3.

consolidation of the cases . . . for discovery and trial purposes.”9 The cases were consolidated “for

all further proceedings, and for final disposition.”10

In December 2023, seven city court lawsuits were transferred to the 17th JDC.11 The two

remaining city court lawsuits were transferred in October 2024.12 Synergy, a non-diverse defendant

domiciled in Louisiana, settled and was dismissed from all the lawsuits on May 6, 2025.13

Finally, AdCom moved to consolidate the city court lawsuits with the previously

consolidated 17th JDC lawsuits.14 An agreed judgment consolidating those lawsuits was signed

September 15, 2025.15 AdCom filed its removal notice on October 15, 2025.16 Daigle timely filed

its motion to remand.17

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Diversity jurisdiction depends upon the simultaneous existence of complete diversity and

an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A defendant seeking to remove

a case to federal court must file a notice of removal “within 30 days after receipt by the defendant,

through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading . . . or within 30 days after the service

of summons upon the defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). If a case is not initially removable, a notice

of removal may be filed within 30 days after receipt 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). A case asserting diversity jurisdiction cannot be removed

more than one year after commencement of the action, unless plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent

9 Id.

10 Id.

11 R. Doc. 10-2 at 20–70

12 Id. at 71–89

13 R. Doc. 1-3 at 2-3.

14 R. Doc. 10-2 at 16-19

15 R. Doc. 2-4 at 2-3

16 R. Doc. 2 at 2

17 R. Doc. 20.

removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1); see Hoyt v. Lane Constr. Corp., 927 F.3d 287, 293 (5th Cir.

2019). The removing party has the burden of showing federal jurisdiction exists. Mumfrey v. CVS

Pharmacy, Inc., 719 F.3d 392, 397 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins.

Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002)). Any doubt regarding removal must be resolved in favor

of remand. Manguno, 276 F.3d at 723 (citing Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th

Cir. 2000)).

III. ANALYSIS

The parties acknowledge this case was not initially removable.18 Thus, whether removal

was timely depends on when AdCom received “an amended pleading, motion, order or other

paper” from which it could first ascertain the case was removable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3).

The information supporting removal “must be unequivocally clear and certain to start the time

limit running for a notice of removal.” Bosky v. Kroger Texas, LP, 288 F.3d 208, 211 (5th Cir. 2002)

(emphasis added).

Daigle argues AdCom was aware the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 as early as

February 2023, when the first motion to consolidate was filed in the 17th JDC.19 Consequently,

the argument continues, AdCom was able to ascertain removability on April 23, 2025, when Daigle

circulated a motion to dismiss Synergy, the only non-diverse defendant.20 Because AdCom waited

longer than 30 days from that date to file notice of removal, Daigle argues removal is untimely.21

In response, AdCom asserts it could not ascertain removability until all 28 lawsuits were

merged in September 2025.22 Relying upon Matter of Succession of Breen, 2021-0806 (La. App.

18 See R. Doc. 20-1 at 1; R. Doc. 25 at 6.

19 R. Doc. 20-1 at 10.

20 Id.

21 Id.

22 R. Doc. 25 at 6.

1 Cir. 7/11/23), 370 So. 3d 1114, AdCom contends the August 2023 order was a limited

consolidation for administrative convenience, which did not legally merge the lawsuits.23 State law

defines and sets the parameters of consolidation and guides the federal court’s remand analysis.

See Poole v. Poppell, No. 18-6921 c/w 18-6961, 2019 WL 1397944, at *2 (E.D. La. Mar. 27, 2019)

(“[A] merger of all claims and all parties occurs when the state court makes clear its intention to

join the parties’ claims into a single proceeding for all purposes.”). If the state court clearly intends

to combine all claims and parties into one proceeding, the lawsuits effectively merge into a single

case. Id.

The August 2023 order reflects the state court’s intent to treat the 19 consolidated lawsuits

as one. There is no material difference in the operative language of the August 2023 order and the

September 2025 order. The August 2023 order provides that the 19 17th JDC lawsuits are “hereby

consolidated with” the lead case, no. C-145410, “for all further proceedings, and for final

disposition, in order to best serve the ends of justice and economy.”24 The September 2025 order

similarly provides that all lawsuits “are consolidated under Docket No. C-145410 for all further

proceedings, and final disposition.”25 While the September 2025 order added that “[t]he cases

should be treated as a single unit and will be tried together, and may be appealed in a single

appeal,”26 that language simply elaborates upon the intent already expressed in the August 2023

order that the cases be consolidated “for all further proceedings, and for final disposition.” If the

August 2023 order did not merge the lawsuits, then the identical language in the September 2025

order did not merge the lawsuits.

23 Id. at 7.

24 R. Doc. 20-3 (emphasis added).

25 R. Doc. 2-4 at 3 (emphasis added).

26 R. Doc. 2-4 at 3.

The August 2023 order made it “unequivocally clear and certain” the 17th JDC lawsuits

were merged into a single proceeding with a combined amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.

See Bosky, 288 F.3d at 211. In fact, AdCom presented aggregate claims of $389,724.50 five months

earlier in its motion to consolidate.27 In that same motion, AdCom said all the lawsuits involved

the “exact same” issues of fact and law, determination of one lawsuit would likely determine all

lawsuits, and “the amount in dispute will exceed the jurisdictional limit for the lawsuits in City

Court.”28 The Court finds the amount in controversy unequivocally clear, certain and ascertained

by no later than August 2023.

While the amount in controversy element was satisfied by August 2023, the case was not

removable then because a non-diverse party, Synergy, remained a defendant. On April 23, 2025,

AdCom received an unsigned draft of a motion to dismiss Synergy.29 A signed order of dismissal

was received on May 6, 2025.30 Both the motion and subsequent order made it “unequivocally

clear and certain” that complete diversity now existed: plaintiff, Daigle, an alleged Louisiana

citizen; and, defendants, AdCom and Jim Gildenblatt, alleged Texas citizens. See Bosky, 288 F.3d

at 211. The elements of diversity jurisdiction simultaneously existed at that time.31 The notice of

removal was filed October 15, 2025—more than 30 days later after diversity was perfected—and

thus is untimely.

The Court does not resolve whether Daigle was in bad faith under the §1446(c)(1)

exception. While that exception extends the one-year limitation for diversity-based removals, it

27 R.Doc. 20-2 at 4.

28 Id.

29 R. Doc. 20-4.

30 R. Doc. 1-3 at 2-3.

31 Whether the joint motion to dismiss was sufficient to trigger the 30-day removal deadline is immaterial.

Because April 23, 2025 and May 6, 2025 are both more than 30 days before AdCom filed the October 15,

2025 notice of removal, removal was untimely. See Howell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 17-2069,

2017 WL 1506053, at *4 (E.D. La. Apr. 27, 2017) (declining to determine when the defendant was put on

notice under section 1446(b)(3) where either date would lead to the same result).

does not eliminate the § 1446(b)(3) 30-day filing requirement. See DeCuir v. United Fin. Cas.

Co., No. 23-1572, 2023 WL 5200525, at *2 (E.D. La. Aug. 14, 2023) (bad faith under section

1446(c)(1) does not extend section 1446(b)(3)’s 30-day filing deadline).

AdCom requests leave to amend its notice of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1653.32 Because

the case is remanded on timeliness grounds, amendment of the jurisdictional allegations under

section 1653 is not warranted. AdCom’s request for leave to amend is DENIED.

AdCom moves to strike Daigle’s reply, claiming it was filed after the Court’s 5:00 p.m.

deadline and raises new arguments not presented in Daigle’s remand motion.33 AdCom’s motion

to strike is DENIED.

Daigle requests attorney fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).34 “Absent unusual

circumstances, courts may award attorney’s fees under section 1447(c) only where the removing

party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin v. Franklin Capital

Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). Although the Court finds removal untimely, this case presents

an unusual procedural history involving 28 consolidated lawsuits. AdCom did not lack an

“objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin, 546 U.S. at 141. The request for

attorney fees and costs is DENIED.

IV. CONCLUSION

AdCom’s removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). The August 2023 order

merged the 17th JDC cases into a single proceeding, making it unequivocally clear and certain that

at that time the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Daigle’s voluntary dismissal of Synergy

made it unequivocally clear and certain that complete diversity of citizenship existed. Therefore,

32 R. Doc. 25 at 10–13.

33 R. Doc. 29.

34 R. Doc. 20-1 at 16-17.

the 30-day period for removal began no later than May 6, 2025, and expired no later than June 5,

2025. AdCom’s October 15, 2025 notice of removal was untimely. The bad faith exception under

section 1446(c)(1), even if applicable, does not extend the 30-day filing deadline of section

1446(b)(3).

Considering the above and foregoing;

IT IS ORDERED that Daigle’s Motion to Remand (R. Doc. 20) is GRANTED. This

matter is remanded to the 17th Judicial District Court, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 28th day of May, 2026

WILLIAM J. CRAIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE