Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 290 v. SDT Solutions, LLC et al Case remanded to (the 164th District Court of Harris County, Texas).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Harris County Municipal Utility
District No. 290,
Plaintiff,
v.
SDT Solutions, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action H-25-2605
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.
ECF No. 19. The Motion is GRANTED. The case is remanded to
the 164th District Court of Harris County, Texas.
1. Background
The 	Plaintiff 	in 	this 	lawsuit, 	Harris 	County 	Municipal
Utility District No. 290 (Plaintiff), is a political subdivision of the
state of Texas. ECF Nos. 1 ¶ 14, 1-3 ¶ 2. In May 2025, Plaintiff
filed its Original Petition in the 164th District Court of Harris
County, 	Texas. 	ECF No. 1-3. 	It 	alleges 	two 	state-law 	claims
against four defendants—Brightspeed of Texas, Inc., Brightspeed
of Southern Texas, Inc., Brightspeed of Coastal Texas, Inc. (the
Brightspeed Defendants) and SDT Solutions, LLC (SDT). Id. The
Brightspeed Defendants are Texas corporations that maintain a
principal place of business in North Carolina. ECF No. 1-5 at 2,
1- 6 at 2, 1-7 at 2. SDT is a limited liability company with members
domiciled in Mississippi and Delaware. ECF Nos. 1 ¶ 15, 19 at 3.
Plaintiff 	seeks 	injunctive 	relief 	and 	monetary 	relief 	over
$1,000,000. ECF No. 1-3 ¶ 7.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 06, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-02605 Document 22 Filed 04/06/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
Three 	days 	after 	filing 	its 	lawsuit, 	Plaintiff 	served 	the
Brightspeed Defendants. ECF No. 19-1 at 9–11. It served SDT the
following day. Id. at 8.
The day after SDT was served, it unilaterally removed the
case to federal court. ECF No. 1. In its Notice of Removal, SDT
stated 	that 	the 	court 	“has 	original 	jurisdiction . . . based 	on
diversity of citizenship and an amount-in-controversy exceeding
$75,000.” 	Id. ¶ 5 	(citing 	28 	U.S.C. 	§§ 1332, 	1441(b), 	1446). 	It
asserted that, “[a]s of the date of this filing, [the Brightspeed
Defendants] have not been served.” Id. ¶ 3.
In its Motion to Remand, Plaintiff argues that the parties
are not completely diverse, and therefore, the court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over this matter. Defendants did not respond
to the Motion, so it is deemed unopposed. See S.D. Tex. L.R. 7.4
(stating 	that 	failure 	to 	respond 	to 	a 	motion 	is 	“taken 	as 	a
representation of no opposition”).
2. Legal Standard and Analysis
A defendant may remove “any civil action brought in a State
court of which the district courts of the United States have original
jurisdiction[.]” 	28 U.S.C. 	§ 1441(a). 	Removal 	can 	be 	based 	on
diversity jurisdiction if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000
and 	the 	dispute 	is 	between 	citizens 	of 	different 	states. 	See
28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441; Priester v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co.,
832 F. App’x 240, 244 (5th Cir. 2020). The citizenship requirement
in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) requires complete diversity of citizenship
between the parties. Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89
(2005). “[D]iversity of citizenship must exist both at the time of
filing in state court and at the time of removal to federal court.”
Ashford v. Aeroframe Servs., L.L.C., 907 F.3d 385, 386–87 (5th Cir.
2018) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 249
(5th Cir. 1996)).
Case 4:25-cv-02605 Document 22 Filed 04/06/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
The parties do not dispute the citizenship of each party.
For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff, a political
subdivision of the state of Texas, is a citizen of Texas. ECF Nos. 1
¶ 14, 1-3 ¶ 2. The Brightspeed Defendants—Texas corporations
with 	a 	principal 	place 	of 	business 	in 	North 	Carolina—are
considered citizens of both Texas and North Carolina. ECF Nos. 1
¶ 16, 1-5 at 2, 1-6 at 2, 1-7 at 2, 19 at 2–3. And the parties agree
that SDT is a foreign business entity. ECF Nos. 1 ¶ 15, 19 at 3.
Because 	Plaintiff 	and 	the 	Brightspeed 	Defendants 	are
citizens of Texas, there is not complete diversity of citizenship
between the parties, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.
In 	its 	Notice 	of 	Removal, 	SDT 	asserted that 	“[b]ecause
neither SDT . . . nor any of its members are citizens of the same
state 	as 	Plaintiff . . . and 	because 	none 	of 	the 	other 	named
defendants have been served at this time, this case is removable
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441(b), and 1446.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 17.
In support, SDT cited the “snap removal” process, in which “[a]
non-forum defendant may remove an otherwise removable case
even when a named defendant who has yet to be properly joined
and served is a citizen of the forum state.” Id. at n.6 (quoting Tex.
Brine Co., LLC v. Am. Arbitration Assoc., Inc., 955 F.3d 482, 487
(5th Cir. 2020)).
The problem for SDT is that a non-forum defendant may use
snap removal only when the action would be otherwise removable
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 were it not for the forum-defendant rule.
Tex. Brine Co., 955 F.3d at 485. The forum-defendant rule provides
that an action that is “otherwise removable solely on the basis of
[diversity jurisdiction] may not be removed if any of the parties in
interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the
State in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).
Snap removal allows a non-forum defendant to bypass the forum-
Case 4:25-cv-02605 Document 22 Filed 04/06/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
defendant rule if it removes before the forum-defendant is served.
Tex. Brine Co., 955 F.3d at 487.
Here, 	the 	forum-defendant 	rule 	does 	not 	come 	into 	the
equation. Because the parties are not completely diverse, the
action was not otherwise removable on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction. Accordingly, snap removal cannot apply. And even if
the 	parties 	were 	completely 	diverse, 	SDT’s 	attempt 	at 	snap
removal failed for a second reason—the Brightspeed Defendants
were properly served the day before SDT.
Because 	the 	parties 	are 	not 	completely 	diverse, 	SDT’s
removal was improper. The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
3. Conclusion
Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand, ECF No. 19, is GRANTED.
The case is remanded to the 164th District Court of Harris County,
Texas.
Signed at Houston, Texas, on April 6, 2026.
______________________________________
Peter Bray
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-02605 Document 22 Filed 04/06/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4