Bellmor v. Viewrail Install, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Russell Bellmor,
Plaintiff,
v.
Viewrail Install, LLC, and
Iron Baluster, LLC,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action H-25-4216
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
Pending 	before 	the 	court 	is 	Plaintiff 	Russell 	Bellmor’s
Motion to Remand. ECF No. 16. The court has considered the
motion, the responses, and the applicable law. Bellmor’s Motion to
Remand, ECF No. 16, is DENIED.
1. Background
Russell Bellmor filed suit against Viewrail Install, LLC
(Viewrail) in the 457th District Court of Montgomery County,
Texas, on July 29, 2025. ECF No. 1-3. In his Original Petition,
Bellmor asserted that he contracted with Viewrail to complete
construction projects in his new home at a cost of $60,847.88.
Id. ¶ 8. 	The 	cost 	included 	“the 	purchase 	of 	glass 	panels 	and
handrails for the catwalk . . . as well as a floating staircase.” Id.
He alleged that after moving into the home, he discovered that
most of the glass panels were cloudy around the edges. Id. ¶ 9.
Bellmor asserted that he hired a professional glass cleaner to
address the cloudiness. Id. He alleged that despite spending at
least $300 on professional cleaning costs, the cloudiness persisted.
Id. ¶ 17. Bellmor hired a third-party glass company to inspect the
panels. 	Id. ¶ 11. 	The 	inspector 	allegedly 	determined 	that 	a
manufacturing defect had likely caused the cloudiness. Id.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 06, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04216 Document 23 Filed 04/06/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

2
Bellmor asserted that he reported the issue to Viewrail,
which replaced the panels at no charge to him. ECF No. 1-3 ¶ 12.
However, 	Bellmor 	asserted 	that 	the 	new 	glass 	panels 	were
similarly defective. Id. ¶ 13. Viewrail again replaced the panels.
Id. ¶ 14. Bellmor asserted the third set of glass panels were also
defective. Id. Bellmor also asserted that the repeated installation
and removal of the panels caused increasingly severe damage to
the surrounding areas. Id. ¶ 15. He alleged that because of the
problems with the glass and the resulting damage to his home, he
experienced “significant harm and distress,” embarrassment, and
discomfort. Id. ¶¶ 16, 22, 30.
Bellmor asserted three claims against Viewrail—(1) breach
of contract, (2) false, misleading, and deceptive acts and practices
in the conduct of trade and commerce, in violation of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA); and (3) breach of express
and 	implied 	warranty 	under 	the 	Texas 	Civil 	Practices 	and
Remedies Code § 38.001, or in the alternative, under the DTPA.
ECF No. 1-3 ¶¶ 23–41. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure
47, Bellmor pleaded that he “seeks monetary relief of $250,000 or
less and non-monetary relief.” Id. ¶ 2. Specifically, Bellmor stated
that he sought to recover actual costs, “including the cost of
cleaning, repairing, and potentially replacing the defective glass
panels and handrails,” reasonable attorney’s fees, and damages for
mental anguish. Id. ¶¶ 26–27, 32–33, 40–41. Bellmor asserted that
he may also be entitled to treble damages under Section 17.50(b)
of the DTPA “if Viewrail’s actions are found to be knowingly
committed.” Id. ¶ 32.
Viewrail removed the case to federal court on September 5,
2025. ECF No. 1. It stated that the 	court has subject 	matter
jurisdiction pursuant to diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332,
because the amount in controversy exceeds “$75,000.00, exclusive
Case 4:25-cv-04216 Document 23 Filed 04/06/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

3
of 	interest 	and 	costs, 	and 	diversity 	of 	citizenship 	exists . . . .”
Id. ¶ 2.
Approximately 	two 	weeks 	later, 	Bellmor 	filed 	his 	First
Amended 	Complaint, 	in 	which 	he 	added 	Iron 	Baluster, 	LLC
(Baluster) as a defendant. ECF No. 8 ¶ 3. According to Bellmor,
“Viewrail is an assumed business name of” Baluster. Id. ¶ 5. He
alleged the same three claims—breach of contract, violations of the
DTPA, 	and 	breach 	of 	warranty—against 	both 	Viewrail 	and
Baluster (Defendants). Id. ¶¶ 11–24.
On November 13, 2025, the court held the initial conference
in 	this 	case. 	ECF 	No. 12. 	During 	the 	hearing, 	it 	ordered
Defendants to submit an affidavit explaining why they believed
the 	case 	meets 	the 	amount-in-controversy 	requirement 	to
establish 	diversity 	jurisdiction. 	Id.; 	see 	also 	28 U.S.C. § 1332
(establishing that the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000,
exclusive of interest and costs).
Defendants timely submitted a Memorandum in Support of
Removal to explain their position. ECF No. 15. Defendants argued
that Bellmor’s Original Petition alleged that the cost of the project
under the contract was $60,804.88. Id. ¶ 11. They asserted that
the 	cost 	of 	the 	project, 	combined 	with 	attorney’s 	fees, 	costs,
interest, and the potential to recover trebled economic damages
under 	the 	DTPA 	exceeds 	the 	jurisdictional 	threshold 	of
Section 1332. Id. ¶¶ 12–15.
In the instant motion, Bellmor’s Motion to Remand, Bellmor
asserts 	that 	Defendants’ 	Memorandum 	was 	insufficient 	to
establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount-in-
controversy 	exceeds 	$75,000. 	ECF No. 16 ¶ 6. 	Accordingly, 	he
asserts that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. He asks
the court remand to Montgomery County. Id. ¶ 7. Defendants
oppose the Motion, largely for the same reasons asserted in their
Memorandum in Support of Removal. ECF No. 19.
Case 4:25-cv-04216 Document 23 Filed 04/06/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

4
2. Legal Standard
A defendant may remove a civil action from state court if the
federal courts would have had original jurisdiction had the action
been filed in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); In re Deepwater
Horizon, 745 F.3d 157, 162 (5th Cir. 2014). “The party seeking to
assert 	federal 	jurisdiction . . . has 	the 	burden 	of 	proving 	by 	a
preponderance of the evidence that subject matter jurisdiction
exists.” New Orleans & Gulf Coast Ry. Co. v. Barrois, 533 F.3d 321,
327 (5th Cir. 2008). “[O]perative facts and pleadings are evaluated
at the time of removal.” Deepwater Horizon, 745 F.3d at 163.
Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over civil
actions between citizens of different States, in which the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). 	The 	court 	is 	satisfied 	that 	the 	current
parties to the lawsuit are of diverse citizenship. See Affidavit of
Landon Richmond, ECF No. 15-1 (establishing that Defendants
are citizens of Indiana for purposes of diversity jurisdiction); ECF
No. 1-3 (establishing that Bellmor is an individual domiciled in
Texas). 	The 	only 	disputed 	issue 	is 	whether 	the 	amount 	in
controversy exceeds $75,000.
The amount in controversy is ordinarily determined based
on “the sum demanded in good faith in the initial pleading.”
Durbois v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 37 F.4th 1053, 1056
(5th Cir. 2022) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)). “Any ambiguities are
construed against removal because the removal statute should be
strictly construed in favor of remand.” Manguno v. Prudential
Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing
Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2000)).
Defendants argue that they had a good faith basis to believe
that the amount in controversy met the jurisdictional requirement
because 	Bellmor’s 	Original 	Petition 	stated 	that 	he 	“seeks
monetary relief of $250,000.00 or less and non-monetary relief.”
Case 4:25-cv-04216 Document 23 Filed 04/06/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

5
ECF No. 15 ¶ 11 	(citing 	ECF No. 1-3 ¶ 2). 	That 	jurisdictional
statement 	is 	ambiguous, 	at 	best. 	Because 	ambiguities 	are
construed 	against 	removal, 	Bellmor’s 	jurisdictional 	statement
alone 	is 	insufficient 	to 	determine 	whether 	the 	amount-in-
controversy requirement is satisfied.
“When the plaintiff’s complaint does not allege a specific
amount of damages, the removing defendant must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
exceeds [the jurisdictional amount].” De Aguilar v. Boeing Co.,
11 F.3d 55, 58 (5th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). “In determining
the amount in controversy, courts should consider not only the
plaintiff’s economic damages, but also attorney’s fees, statutory
penalties, statutory damages, and punitive damages. St. Paul
Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir.
1998).
Defendants assert that the actual economic damages at issue
amount to at least the cost of the projects under the contract—
$60,847.88. 	ECF No. 12. 	Bellmor 	asserts 	that 	the 	Defendants’
position is speculative and unsupported by evidence. ECF No. 17
¶ 4. He argues that he “never specifically alleged damages of
$60,847.88 in his Original Petition.” Id. ¶ 5. Rather, he asserts, he
that dollar amount merely represents “Defendants’ own costs for
services they provided . . . .” Id. (emphasis in original). The court is
not persuaded. In the Original Petition, Bellmor stated, “the cost
of installation” of the projects “totaled $60,847.88.” ECF No. 1-3
¶ 8. He does not allege that he paid anything other than that
amount. Based on the Original Petition, there is no indication
actual 	economic 	damage 	at 	issue 	is 	some 	amount 	less 	than
$60,847.88. Further, in Bellmor’s Initial Disclosures, he conceded
in connection with his computation of damages that “Plaintiff paid
Defendants $60,847.88 to supply and install the glass panels and
handrails.” ECF No. 19-1 at 3.
Case 4:25-cv-04216 Document 23 Filed 04/06/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

6
Defendants point out that in Bellmor’s Original Petition, he
pleaded 	that 	Viewrail 	violated 	DTPA 	§ 17.46, 	including 	by
“[k]nowingly making false or misleading statements regarding the
nature of the defects.” ECF No. 15 ¶ 13 (referencing ECF No. 1-3
¶ 29(c)). As Bellmor acknowledged, under Section 17.50(b) of the
DTPA, economic damages may be trebled for violations that are
committed knowingly. ECF No. 1-3 ¶ 32; Tex. Bus. & Com. Code
Ann. § 17.50(b). In his prayer for relief in the state court Petition,
Bellmor was clearly seeking treble damages. Id. at 11. Trebling the
alleged 	contract 	cost 	of 	$60,847.88 	exceeds 	the 	amount-in-
controversy 	requirement 	under 	Section 	1332, 	without 	even
considering Bellmor’s other alleged economic costs (e.g., cleaning
fees), damages for mental anguish, and attorney’s fees.
Defendants have shown, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that the amount-in-controversy at issue at the time of removal was
greater than $75,000. The court has subject matter jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
3. Conclusion
For these reasons, Plaintiff Russell Bellmor’s Motion to
Remand, ECF No. 16, is DENIED.
Signed at Houston, Texas, on April 6, 2026.
______________________________________
Peter Bray
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-04216 Document 23 Filed 04/06/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 6