Fowler v. DoorDash Essentials, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ARTRELLE FOWLER, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 4:25-CV-1097 HEA
)
DOORDASH ESSENTIALS, LLC., 	)
d/b/a Doordash, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Artrelle Fowler’s Motion to
Remand. (ECF No. 15). Defendants DoorDash Essentials, LLC and Jerod Wright
oppose the motion. For the reasons set out below, the motion to remand will be
denied.
I. 	Background
Plaintiff Artrelle Fowler filed this action in the Circuit Court of St. Louis
County, Missouri, against DoorDash Essentials, LLC (“Doordash”) and Jerod
Wright, an individual. 	In his state court Petition, Plaintiff alleges that he was an
employee of Doordash. 	He further alleges that he is a dark-complected, African-
American male and while he was employed at Doordash, his supervisor, Defendant
Wright, wrote a racially derogatory text that was directed at African Americans.
Case: 4:25-cv-01097-HEA Doc. #: 17 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 1 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Plaintiff alleges that he complained about the text, and that after making his
complaint, he was retaliated against and was fired.
Plaintiff brings the following three counts in his Petition against Doordash:
“Racial Discrimination,” “Color Discrimination,” Retaliation, and Hostile Work
Environment. (Counts I, II, III, and V). All three counts are brought under the
Missouri Human Rights Act (“MHRA”). Plaintiff also brings a common law
“Garden Variety Emotional Distress” claim against Defendant Wright. (Count IV).
All five of Plaintiff’s claims are brought under state law. There are no federal claims
in this suit.
On July 25, 2025, Defendants removed the cause of action to this Court. 	In
their Notice of Removal, Defendants aver this Court has original jurisdiction over
the dispute pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, “because this is a civil action between
citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of
$75,000, exclusive of costs and interest.” 	(ECF No. 1 at 2). 	Defendants aver
Plaintiff is a citizen of Missouri, Doordash is a citizen of Delaware and California,
and Defendant Wright is a citizen of Kansas. Defendants also contend in their Notice
of Removal that any claim against Defendant Wright is preempted by the MHRA,
and that Defendant Wright was fraudulently joined and, therefore, his citizenship
should be disregarded for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
Case: 4:25-cv-01097-HEA Doc. #: 17 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 2 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Plaintiff filed a motion to remand. Plaintiff argues that complete diversity of
citizenship does not exist because Plaintiff and Defendant Wright share Missouri
citizenship. 	Plaintiff also argues that Defendants have not established that the
requisite amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction to exist in this case.
II. 	Legal Standard
A civil action brought in state court may be removed to the proper district
court if the district court has original jurisdiction of the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
In general, a defendant may rely on one of two types of federal subject matter
jurisdiction to remove a case to federal court: (1) diversity of citizenship under 28
U.S.C. § 1332; and (2) federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
There is diversity jurisdiction “where the matter in controversy exceeds the
sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between [ ] citizens
of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). For diversity jurisdiction to exist, there
must be complete diversity of citizenship between plaintiffs and defendants. Buckley
v. Control Data Corp., 923 F.2d 96, 97, n.6 (8th Cir. 1991). Diversity jurisdiction
requires “complete diversity, that is where no defendant holds citizenship in the
same state where any plaintiff holds citizenship.” Junk v. Terminix Int'l Co., 628
F.3d 439, 445 (8th Cir. 2010). 	“In the case of a removed action, diversity [of
citizenship] must exist both when the state petition is filed and when the petition for
Case: 4:25-cv-01097-HEA Doc. #: 17 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 3 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
removal is filed.” Knudson v. Sys. Painters, Inc., 634 F.3d 968, 975 (8th Cir. 2011)
(quoted case omitted). “It is settled, of course, that absent complete diversity a case
is not removable because the district court would lack original jurisdiction.” Exxon
Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 564 (2005) (cited case omitted).
Where complete diversity of citizenship does not exist, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) requires
a district court to remand the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The amount in controversy must be proved by a preponderance of the
evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B). 	When a case is removed, the removing party
need not provide evidence of the amount in controversy is its Notice of Removal.
Pudlowski v. The St. Louis Rams, LLC, 829 F.3d 963, 964 (8th Cir. 2016). A
defendant is not required to submit evidence establishing federal-court jurisdiction
“unless the plaintiff or the court questions the defendant's claim of jurisdiction.” 	Id.
The notice of removal, “‘need 	include only 	a plausible allegation’ that 	the
jurisdictional requirements are met.” Id. (quoting Dart Cherokee Basin Operating
Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014)). 	When a plaintiff challenges that there
is diversity jurisdiction, the defendant may show evidence of the amount in
controversy by “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). The Eighth Circuit has recognized “other papers” include “a settlement
Case: 4:25-cv-01097-HEA Doc. #: 17 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 4 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
letter or similar correspondence.” Gibson v. Clean Harbors Env't Servs., Inc., 840
F.3d 515, 521 (8th Cir. 2016).
The 	party 	seeking 	removal 	and 	opposing 	remand 	has 	the 	burden 	of
establishing jurisdiction. Cent. Iowa Power Co-op. v. Midwest Indep. Transmission
Sys. Operator, Inc., 561 F.3d 904, 912 (8th Cir. 2009); City of Univ. City, Missouri
v. AT & T Wireless Servs., Inc., 229 F. Supp. 2d 927, 929 (E.D. Mo. 2002).
III. 	Discussion
A. Amount in Controversy
We first will address the amount in controversy. 	In moving to remand,
Plaintiff argues that the amount in controversy at issue in this case does not exceed
$75,000. 	In fact, Plaintiff contends that to date, his damages do not exceed $50,000,
let alone $75,000. 	Plaintiff, however, has not filed a signed stipulation as to
damages. 	In addition, Plaintiff argues that damages under the MHRA are subject
to caps, and Plaintiff can only recover $50,000 in compensatory and punitive
damages against an employer with 100 employees.
In response to Plaintiff’s argument, Defendants point to two demand letters
that were attached to their Notice of Removal. The first, which is dated May 30,
2023, and is signed by Plaintiff’s attorney, states the following, “[g]iven the
egregious nature of what occurred in the Matter, we foresee the compensatory
Case: 4:25-cv-01097-HEA Doc. #: 17 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 5 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
damages could be as high as $5 Million of higher.”1 (ECF No. 1, Ex. 2 at 3). 	The
second demand letter is dated June 29, 2023, and is also signed by Plaintiff’s
attorney. 	(ECF No. 1, Ex. 3 at 1). 	In his second demand letter, Plaintiff proposes
to settle the parties’ dispute for $1,000,000, plus travel expenses and tuition
assistance. (Id.) 	Therefore, Defendants argue, there is evidence that the amount in
controversy in this suit far exceeds $75,000.
As for the statutory limit on damages, Defendants argue that Doordash has
more than 500 employees and, therefore, it is not subject to the $50,000 cap, but
rather a $500,000 cap applies to Plaintiff’s claims against Doordash. Mo. Rev. Stat.
§ 213.111.4(2)(d). 	Defendants also point to the fact that in each of his five counts,
Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $25,000.
After considering the facts in this case, including the following: (1) that
Plaintiff’s settlement demands far exceed $75,000; (2) that Plaintiff has not
stipulated that the amount of his damages is $75,000 or less; (3) that the petition’s
allegations include racially discriminatory conduct, the alleged use of the term
n***** by a manager, and retaliation that resulted in the termination of Plaintiff’s
employment; and (4) that Plaintiff may be entitled to recover attorneys’ fees under
the MHRA, the Court finds Defendants have met their burden of establishing by a
1 Plaintiff has not challenged the authenticity or admissibility of the two demand letters.
Case: 4:25-cv-01097-HEA Doc. #: 17 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 6 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy in this action meets
the jurisdictional threshold for diversity jurisdiction. 	Bell v. Hershey Co., 557 F.3d
953, 959 (8th Cir. 2009); Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Vein Centers for Excellence,
Inc., 912 F.3d 1076, 1081 (8th Cir. 2019). 	See also Bivens v. Geico Ins. Co., No.
4:24 CV 93 CDP, 2024 WL 1091793, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 12, 2024) (finding
evidence of settlement demand that was above $75,000 was relevant evidence to
support the court’s finding that defendant had met its burden of establishing the
requisite amount in controversy); Katwala v. Badger, No. 4:23 -CV-1230 SRW,
2023 WL 8004946, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 17, 2023) (same); Parshall v. Menard,
Inc., No. 4:16-CV-828 CEJ, 2016 WL 3916394, at *4 (E.D. Mo. July 20, 2016)
(same).
B. Citizenship of Defendant Wright
Plaintiff also argues the Court is without subject matter jurisdiction over this
dispute because Defendant Wright is a citizen of Missouri, as is Plaintiff and,
therefore, there can be no diversity of citizenship. 	Plaintiff merely avers that
Defendant Wright is a citizen of Kansas; he presented no evidence to support his
assertion.
According to the Notice of Removal, Defendant Wright was a citizen of
Kansas at the time the case was initially filed in Missouri state court and at the time
Case: 4:25-cv-01097-HEA Doc. #: 17 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 7 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
of removal. 	Defendants aver, however, that after this case was removed, Defendant
Wright moved to Missouri. 	Defendants argue that despite the fact Defendant
Wright has since moved to Missouri, there is diversity of citizenship in this case.
But Defendants failed to submit any evidence, such as an affidavit from Defendant
Wright, to support their assertion that Defendant Wright was a citizen of Kansas at
the time the case was filed and on the date of removal. 	We will review Defendants’
alternative argument, that Defendant Wright was fraudulently joined.
C. Fraudulent Joinder
Fraudulent joinder is an exception to the rule that complete diversity of
citizenship must exist both when the state petition is filed and when the petition for
removal is filed. Knudson, 634 F.3d at 976. “[A] plaintiff cannot defeat a defendant’s
‘right of removal’ by fraudulently joining a defendant who has ‘no real connection
with the controversy.’” Id. (quoted case omitted).
“Ordinarily, to prove that a plaintiff fraudulently joined a diversity-destroying
defendant, [the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has] required a defendant seeking
removal to prove that the plaintiff's claim against the diversity-destroying defendant
has ‘no reasonable basis in fact and law.’” Knudson, 634 F.3d at 977 (quoting Filla
v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 336 F.3d 806, 810 (8th Cir. 2003)). 	Under this standard, “if
it is clear under governing state law that the complaint does not state a cause of
Case: 4:25-cv-01097-HEA Doc. #: 17 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 8 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
action against the non-diverse defendant, the joinder is fraudulent and federal
jurisdiction of the case should be retained.” Filla, 336 F.3d at 810 (internal quotation
marks omitted). Joinder is not fraudulent where “there is arguably a reasonable basis
for predicting that the state law might impose liability based upon the facts
involved.” Id. at 811.
Plaintiff brings only one claim against Defendant Wright – a state, common-
law claim for “Garden Variety Emotional Distress.” (Count IV). This claim arises
out of the same underlying facts as Plaintiff’s claims in Counts I-II and V, which are
brought under the MHRA. 	The MHRA provides the exclusive remedy for conduct
giving rise to an MHRA action, and Plaintiff cannot assert common law claims
against his manager based on that same conduct. Johnson v. Midwest Div. - RBH,
LLC, 88 F.4th 731, 735–36 (8th Cir. 2023) (holding common law claim for
emotional distress against the plaintiff’s supervisor was preempted by the MHRA,
because the same factual allegations were used to support both claims). See also
State ex rel. Church & Dwight Co. v. Collins, 543 S.W.3d 22, 28 (Mo. 2018)
(affirming denial of plaintiff’s motion to amend to add common law claims against
employer, “[b]ecause the MHRA fully provides for all remedies available at
common law.”).
Case: 4:25-cv-01097-HEA Doc. #: 17 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 9 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
The Court finds Defendant Wright has been fraudulently joined in this cause
of action, and to the extent he is a citizen of Missouri, his presence does not defeat
diversity jurisdiction.
IV. 	Conclusion
The Court finds there is federal subject matter jurisdiction in this case under
28 U.S.C. § 1332. Defendants have met their burden and have shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that the proper parties to this suit are diverse, and that
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Artrelle Fowler’s Motion to
Remand is DENIED. 	[ECF No. 15]
Dated this 5 th day of December, 2025.
________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-01097-HEA Doc. #: 17 Filed: 12/05/25 Page: 10 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>