Johnson v. Summit Hotels International, Inc et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DORIS JOHNSON 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO: 25-973
SUMMIT HOTELS
INTERNATIONAL, INC. ET AL. 	SECTION: “H”
ORDER AND REASONS
On December 2, 2025, the Court, examining subject matter jurisdiction
sua 	sponte, 	ordered 	Defendants 	to 	amend 	their 	Notice 	of 	Removal 	to
adequately plead diversity jurisdiction.1 The Court found that Defendants had
failed to 	show 	the 	requisite amount 	in controversy. Defendants 	filed 	an
Amended Notice of Removal on December 22, 2025.2 For the following reasons,
the Court finds that the amount in controversy is not met.
Defendants, as the removing parties, bear the burden of demonstrating
that the amount in controversy requirement is met and that removal was
proper.3 When determining whether federal jurisdiction exists, courts consider
1 Doc. 42.
2 Doc. 47.
3 Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002).
Case 2:25-cv-00973-JTM-KWR Document 48 Filed 12/29/25 Page 1 of 4

2
“[t]he claims in the state court petition as they existed at the time of removal.”4
In Louisiana, plaintiffs may not allege a specific amount of damages and may
be 	awarded 	relief 	not 	requested 	in 	the 	pleadings.5 “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 [$75,000].”6 “Proving a fact by a ‘preponderance of the
evidence’ means showing that the existence of a fact is more likely so than
not.”7
The defendant may make this showing in either of two ways: (1)
by demonstrating that it is “facially apparent” that the claims are
likely 	above 	$75,000, 	or 	(2) 	“by 	setting 	forth 	the 	facts 	in
controversy—preferably in the removal petition, but sometimes by
affidavit—that support a finding of the requisite amount.”8
Removal, however “‘cannot be based simply upon conclusory allegations.’”9
On the face of Plaintiff’s state court Petition, it is not apparent that the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Plaintiff alleges only an injury to her
left knee “and other parts of her mind and body.” She seeks damages for pain
and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, medical bills, and loss
of income. These conclusory allegations are insufficient to establish the amount
4 Id.
5 Welch v. Occidental Fire & Cas. Co. of N.C., No. 23-5836, 2023 WL 8271613 (E.D. La. 2023)
(internal citations omitted); see also LA. CODE CIV. P. arts. 893 & 862.
6 DeAguilar v. Boeing Co., 11 F.3d 55, 58 (5th Cir. 1993).
7 Reed v. LKQ Corp., 436 F. Supp. 3d 892, 898 n.1 (N.D. Tex. 2020) (citing Herman &
MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. 375, 390 (1983)).
8 Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 171 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Allen v. R&H Oil &
Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1995) (emphasis in original)).
9 Felton v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 324 F.3d 771, 774 (5th Cir. 2003) (quoting Allen, 63 F.3d
at 1335).
Case 2:25-cv-00973-JTM-KWR Document 48 Filed 12/29/25 Page 2 of 4

3
in controversy where the Petition does not allege the extent or severity of
Plaintiff’s injury.
In their Amended Notice of Removal, Defendants allege that the amount
in 	controversy 	is 	supported 	by 	Plaintiff’s 	medical 	treatment. 	Defendants
present evidence that after the fall at issue, Plaintiff went to the emergency
department where she received an x-ray of her knee, which did not show a
fracture. Her bill for that visit was $1,593. A few weeks later, she visited Dr.
Jonathan Wu with continued complaints of pain. Dr. Wu suspected bursitis
and recommended rest and physical therapy. Plaintiff’s counsel represents
that Plaintiff only saw Dr. Wu once and that she has completed physical
therapy. She continues to treat with acetaminophen with codeine prescribed
by her primary care physician and has not had any surgical recommendation.10
Plaintiff’s counsel 	represents that, besides pain medication, Plaintiff has
completed treatment for this injury. In support of the amount in controversy,
Defendants point out that Plaintiff failed to allege that the monetary value of
her claim is less than $75,000 or enter into a stipulation that her claim is less
than $75,000.
The Court finds that a diagnosis of bursitis treated with physical therapy
and 	pain 	medication 	plainly 	does 	not 	meet 	the 	requisite 	amount 	in
controversy.11 Defendants have the burden of proving that Plaintiff’s claim
10 Plaintiff’s counsel also indicates that Plaintiff was already taking this medication for
arthritis prior to the fall.
11 See Hill v. DG Louisiana, LLC, No. CV 21-325-BAJ-EWD, 2022 WL 3146554, at *5 (M.D.
La. July 1, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 21-325-SDD-EWD, 2022 WL
3142339 (M.D. La. Aug. 5, 2022) (holding that amount in controversy was not met where
Plaintiff had low back and knee pain, including lumbosacral facet joint syndrome, sacroiliitis,
three herniated discs, and multiple bulging discs; had undergone three transforaminal ESIs,
Case 2:25-cv-00973-JTM-KWR Document 48 Filed 12/29/25 Page 3 of 4

4
exceeds $75,000, and they have presented the Court with one bill totaling
$1,593.12 Further, “the failure to include an Article 893 stipulation alone is
insufficient to establish that the jurisdictional minimum is in controversy,”
especially where, as here, the facts support an amount in controversy that is
plainly less than that amount.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Amended Notice of Removal
failed to cure the jurisdictional deficiencies previously identified by this Court,
and the Court therefore sua sponte REMANDS this action to state court for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the telephone status conference set
for December 30, 2025 is CANCELED.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 29th day of December, 2025.
____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
and was “pending” a fourth transforaminal ESI and expected medical expenses were
$22,265).
12 See Johnson v. Kroger Texas, L.P., No. 3:22-CV-2085-S, 2023 WL 3362611, at *4 (N.D.
Tex. May 10, 2023).
Case 2:25-cv-00973-JTM-KWR Document 48 Filed 12/29/25 Page 4 of 4