Sharnese v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company

-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
NYLONDAJAZZ SHARNESE, 	§
§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
V. 	§ 	No. 3:25-cv-3503-B-BN
§
LIBERY MUTUAL PERSONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY,
§
§
§
Defendant. 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case has been referred to the undersigned United States magistrate judge
by Senior United States District Judge Jane J. Boyle pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
and a standing order of reference. See Dkt. No. 4.
Plaintiff NylondaJazz Sharnese has filed a Motion to Remand. See Dkt. No. 9.
The 	undersigned 	enters 	these 	findings 	of 	fact, 	conclusions 	of 	law, 	and
recommendation that the Court should deny the Motion to Remand [Dkt. No. 9] and
retain jurisdiction over this lawsuit.
Background
Sharnese, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit in state court on May 27, 2025
against Defendant Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company. See Dkt. No. 1-3.
Her Original Petition sought “monetary relief of $250,000 or less.” Id. at 11.
Liberty Mutual answered the Original Petition. See id. at 41-47.
Case 3:25-cv-03503-B-BN Document 24 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 9 PageID <pageID>

-2-
On August 18, 2025, Sharnese filed a First Amended Petition that “correct[ed]
the named defendant … without altering [her] claims, causes of action, or factual
allegations.” Id. at 48. Liberty Mutual answered the First Amended Petition. See id.
at 68-75.
On December 10, 2025, Sharnese emailed Liberty Mutual’s counsel “an
updated settlement demand of $234,700.” Dkt. No. 1-4 at 1.
On December 17, 2025, Sharnese filed a Second Amended Petition, which
pleaded a “subtotal” of $69,700 in actual damages. Dkt. No. 1-3 at 85. Sharnese also
sought “punitive, treble, and additional damages” from Liberty Mutual and alleged
that “[t]he total amount sought, including actual and punitive/additional damages, is
$234,700.” Id.
The next day, Sharnese moved for leave to file the Second Amended Petition.
See id. at 93-95.
On December 22, 2025, Liberty Mutual removed the case to this Court on the
basis of diversity jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 1; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 & 1441.
Sharnese filed this Motion to Remand, arguing that removal was improper
because she only seeks $69,700 in actual damages and, so, the amount in controversy
did not exceed $75,000. See Dkt. No. 9.
Legal Standards
For a federal court to have jurisdiction over a state action based on diversity,
each plaintiff’s citizenship must be diverse from each defendant’s citizenship, and the
amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a); Mitchell v.
Case 3:25-cv-03503-B-BN Document 24 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 9 PageID <pageID>

-3-
Bailey, 982 F.3d 937, 942 (5th Cir. 2020), as revised (Dec. 30, 2020).
A defendant may remove an action filed in state court to federal court if the
action is one that could have originally been filed in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. §
1441(a). And, “[w]hen a plaintiff files in state court a civil action over which the
federal 	district 	courts 	would 	have 	original 	jurisdiction 	based 	on 	diversity 	of
citizenship, the defendant or defendants may remove the action to federal court, 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a), provided that no defendant ‘is a citizen of the State in which such
action is brought,’ [28 U.S.C.] § 1441(b).” Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68,
(1996).
As to the amount-in-controversy requirement, if a state-court “petition is silent
(as is often the case in state courts in our jurisdiction), the defendant must prove by
a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.”
Guijarro v. Enter. Holdings, Inc., 39 F.4th 309, 314 (5th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up).
The defendant can meet that burden in one of two ways: (1) by
establishing that it is “facially apparent” that the claims are likely to
exceed $75,000, or (2) by setting forth the facts in controversy that
support a finding of the requisite amount.
Guijarro, 39 F.4th at 314 (cleaned up).
The defendant may meet its burden by this second route if it “sets forth
‘summary judgment type evidence’ of facts in controversy that support a finding of
the requisite amount.” Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720,
723 (5th Cir. 2002) (cleaned up); accord Addo v. Globe Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 230 F.3d
759, 761 (5th Cir. 2000) (“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), ‘if the case stated by the initial
Case 3:25-cv-03503-B-BN Document 24 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 9 PageID <pageID>

-4-
pleading is not removable, a notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after
receipt by the defendant ... of a copy 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 ... .’”) (emphasis in original) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)) (cleaned
up).
And, because “[t]he jurisdictional facts that support removal must be judged
at the time of the removal,” the Court’s task is to “determin[e] the amount in
controversy at the time of removal.” Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 233 F.3d 880,
883 (5th Cir. 2000) (cleaned up).
Analysis
Sharnese’s Second Amended Petition was followed by a motion for leave to file
it. See Dkt. No. 1-3 at 85-95. And there is no order granting that motion in the record.
And, so, the undersigned cannot be sure that the Second Amended Petition – the first
state court pleading to allege a concrete amount of damages – was filed with leave of
the state court. For purposes of this motion, the undersigned assumes that the Second
Amended Petition was filed without leave and, so, was not operative and cannot
provide a basis for removal. See Sowell v. W. Mut. Ins. Co., No. SA-22-cv-1283-JKP,
2023 	WL 	157791, 	at 	*2 	(W.D. 	Tex. 	Jan. 	11, 	2023) 	(“When 	a 	court 	reviews
the amount in controversy within a motion to remand, the operative pleading and the
amount demanded in good faith at the time of removal shall control.”) (citing Scarlott
v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 771 F.3d 883, 887-88 (5th Cir. 2014)).
Sharnese’s Original Petition and First Amended Petition – the presumed
Case 3:25-cv-03503-B-BN Document 24 Filed 02/13/26 Page 4 of 9 PageID <pageID>

-5-
operative pleadings – both sought “monetary relief of $250,000 or less.” Dkt. No. 1-3
at 11; see id. at 49 (incorporating, into the First Amended Petition, all allegations set
forth in the Original Petition).
Pleading “monetary relief of $250,000 or less” under Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 	47(c)(1) 	or 	47(c)(2) is, 	for 	purposes 	of 28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1446(c)(2), 	an
“indeterminate” or “unspecified amount of damages.” Werder v. Allstate Fire & Cas.
Ins. Co., 731 F. Supp. 3d 724, 736 (N.D. Tex. 2024). And, so, allegations of those
ranges 	do 	not 	“constitute 	a specific sum 	demanded that 	is 	dispositive 	of 	the
jurisdictional 	question.” Adame 	v. 	Bunton, 	No. 	EP-22-cv-00464-DCG, 	2022 	WL
20158117, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2022) (cleaned up).
For the same reason, neither does (without more) “seeking ‘monetary relief of
$250,000 or less’ in accordance with [Texas Rule of Civil Procedure] 47(c)(1) [or Rule
47(c)(2)] ... make it facially apparent that the federal jurisdictional amount in
controversy is satisfied.” Id. (cleaned up). A state court petition’s pleading the Rule
47(c)(1) or Rule 47(c)(2) range “does not make clear, on its face, that it is seeking more
than $75,000, only that it seeks less than $250,000.” Alcala v. Allstate Vehicle & Prop.
Ins. Co., No. 1:22-cv-95, 2022 WL 4239223, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2022), rec.
adopted, 2022 WL 4239353 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 2022); accord Garza v. Palomar
Specialty Ins. Co., No. 7:21-cv-00414, 2021 WL 6425093, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2021).
And, so, Sharnese’s pleading “monetary relief of $250,000 or less” under Texas
Rule 	of 	Civil Procedure 	47(c)(1) 	or 47(c)(2) does 	not 	constitute 	a specific sum
Case 3:25-cv-03503-B-BN Document 24 Filed 02/13/26 Page 5 of 9 PageID <pageID>

-6-
demanded 	that 	is 	dispositive 	of 	the 	jurisdictional 	question 	under 28 	U.S.C. 	§
1446(c)(2) and does not make it facially apparent that the jurisdictional threshold for
the amount in controversy is satisfied to support diversity jurisdiction over this
removed action. See Werder, 731 F. Supp. 3d. at 736. And neither the Original nor
First Amended Petition can form a basis for removal.
But Sharnese sent Liberty Mutual an email on December 10, 2025 demanding
$234,700 (the “Demand”). See Dkt. No. 1-4 at 3. Sharnese broke down her requested
damages into several categories, including $200,000 for punitive damages. See id. at
2-3.
Sharnese argues that the Demand “should not be used as a basis to alter the
amount in controversy threshold required when the case was originally filed.” Dkt.
No. 9 at 3. 	And she argues that the amount in controversy is only $69,700 – the
amount of her alleged actual damages in the Second Amended Complaint. See Dkt.
No. 9 at 1.
The undersigned disagrees with both contentions.
The Fifth Circuit has held that a “post-complaint demand letter” can constitute
an “other paper” under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) that gives a defendant notice that the case
is removable. Addo, 230 F.3d at 762; accord Swanson v. Hempstead, 267 F. Supp. 3d
736, 740 (N.D. Miss. 2017) (“A post-complaint demand letter” in which the plaintiff
“stated that her personal injury claim could be settled for $110,000” – above the
minimum amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction – is “exactly the ‘other
paper’ which clarifies the removability of the action … . The Court is to determine the
Case 3:25-cv-03503-B-BN Document 24 Filed 02/13/26 Page 6 of 9 PageID <pageID>

-7-
amount in controversy as 	determined 	by 	the 	relief 	sought 	in 	the 	complaint 	in
conjunction with any ‘other paper’ that may clarify the monetary value of the
damages sought.” (citations omitted)).
And, 	to 	determine 	the amount in controversy, 	the 	court 	may 	consider
“penalties, statutory damages, and punitive damages.” St. Paul Reinsurance Co.,
Ltd. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998); see Ray v. State Farm Lloyds,
No. 3;98-cv-1288-G, 1999 WL 151667, at 2-3 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 1999) (finding a
sufficient amount in controversy in plaintiff’s case against his insurance company).
And, so, when Sharnese sent Liberty Mutual her Demand for $234,700 on
December 10, 2025, the case became removable, even if her actual damages did not
exceed $75,000. And Liberty Mutual timely removed this lawsuit on December 22,
2025, less than thirty days after the case became removable.
And, even if the undersigned were to assume that the Second Amended
Petition is the operative complaint, the case would still be removable.
In 	the 	Second 	Amended 	Petition, 	Sharnese 	seeks 	a 	“subtotal 	of 	actual
damages” of $69,700 plus “punitive, treble, and additional damages,” for a total of
$234,700. She seeks “[t]reble damages under the Texas Insurance Code § 541.152.”
Dkt. No. 1-3 at 18.
And, so, the Second Amended Petition, on its face, seeks damages exceeding
$75,000, even if most of the damages sought are punitive damages or treble damages.
See St. Paul Reinsurance Co., 134 F.3d at 1255 (holding district court erred by failing
Case 3:25-cv-03503-B-BN Document 24 Filed 02/13/26 Page 7 of 9 PageID <pageID>

-8-
to include treble damages under the Texas Insurance Code in its calculation of
amount in controversy).
Considering 	the 	relief 	that 	Sharnese 	demanded 	in 	her 	Original, 	First
Amended, and Second Amended Petition, and the demanded amounts in her Demand,
the undersigned finds that Liberty Mutual has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence 	that 	Sharnese’s 	claims 	involve 	an amount in controversy that 	exceeds
$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, which satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)’s amount-
in-controversy requirement.
And the undersigned finds (and Sharnese does not dispute) that Liberty
Mutual has adequately alleged the citizenship of both parties and that complete
diversity exists between them. See Dkt. No. 1 at 2.
And, so, the Court should deny Sharnese’s Motion to Remand [Dkt. No. 9].
Recommendation
For the reasons explained above, the Court should deny Plaintiff NylondaJazz
Sharnese’s Motion to Remand [Dkt. No. 9] and retain jurisdiction over this case.
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on
all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these
findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections
within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); F ED. R. CIV.
P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or
recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and
specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation
Case 3:25-cv-03503-B-BN Document 24 Filed 02/13/26 Page 8 of 9 PageID <pageID>

-9-
where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by
reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure
to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the
factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or
adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v.
United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996)
DATED: February 13, 2026
_________________________________________
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-03503-B-BN Document 24 Filed 02/13/26 Page 9 of 9 PageID <pageID>