Broussard v. Cricket Wireless LLC et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KIMBERLY BROUSSARD
VERSUS
CRICKET WIRELESS, LLC,
ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-812
SECTION: “H”
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff Kimberly Broussard’s Motion to Remand
(Doc. 8). For the following reasons, the Motion to Remand is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Kimberly Broussard filed this action on March 17, 2025, in the
17th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Lafourche against Cricket
Wireless, 	LLC 	(“Cricket”), 	Crown 	Wireless, 	Corp. 	(“Crown”), 	and 	an
unidentified defendant, John Doe (“Doe”), for injuries she alleges she sustained
when she tripped and fell over a piece of brick or concrete in a pathway while
visiting a Cricket Wireless store. Plaintiff brings claims against Defendant Doe
as the unnamed manager or supervisor of said store. Defendants Cricket and
Crown removed the action to this Court on April 25, 2025, on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff now moves to remand, arguing the absence of
complete diversity between the parties due to the alleged reasonable inference
of Defendant Doe’s citizenship.
Case 2:25-cv-00812-JTM-KWR Document 11 Filed 11/14/25 Page 1 of 4

2
LEGAL STANDARD
Generally, a defendant may remove a civil state court action to federal
court if the federal court has original jurisdiction over the action.1 The burden
is on the moving party to show “[t]hat federal jurisdiction exists and that
removal was proper.”2 When determining whether federal jurisdiction exists,
courts consider “[t]he claims in the state court petition as they existed at the
time of removal.”3 “In making a jurisdictional assessment, a federal court is
not limited to the pleadings; it may look to any record evidence, and may
receive affidavits, deposition testimony, or live testimony concerning the facts
underlying the citizenship of the parties.”4 Removal statutes should be strictly
construed, and any doubt should be resolved in favor of remand.5
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Defendants invoke this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction on the basis
of diversity. Federal diversity jurisdiction exists when no plaintiff has the same
citizenship 	as 	any 	defendant—complete 	diversity—and 	the 	“amount 	in
controversy” 	exceeds 	$75,000.6 	Here, 	the 	amount 	in 	controversy 	is 	not
disputed, but the parties disagree whether the complete diversity requirement
is met.
Plaintiff argues that complete diversity does not exist because Plaintiff
is a Louisiana citizen and presumably, Defendant Doe is also a Louisiana
1 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
2 Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002).
3 Id.
4 Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 249 (5th Cir. 1996).
5 Id.
6 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Case 2:25-cv-00812-JTM-KWR Document 11 Filed 11/14/25 Page 2 of 4

3
citizen.7 Plaintiff bases this assertion on the fact that the unnamed Defendant
is employed as a manager or supervisor at a store in Louisiana. In their
memoranda, 	both 	parties 	brief 	this 	Court 	on 	whether 	Defendant 	Doe 	is
properly joined, because if so, his joinder may destroy diversity. The Court need
not reach this question to decide the instant Motion.
Regardless of whether Defendant Doe was properly joined, Title 28 of
United States Code Section 1441(b)(1) plainly states that “in determining
whether a civil action is removable on the basis of the jurisdiction of 1332(a) of
this title, the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be
disregarded.”8 “‘John Doe’ is . . . the kind of fictitious name this provision
covers,” and must “be disregarded for diversity purposes.”9 Defendant Doe’s
“citizenship is thus irrelevant.”10 Defendants do not “need to ‘wait to identify’
the John Doe [ ] or show that John Doe [ ] was fraudulently joined before
removing the case.”11
As such, the Court need only consider the citizenship of Plaintiff and
Defendants Cricket and Crown to determine whether removal was proper
under this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. It is undisputed that diversity of
citizenship exists between Plaintiff and Defendants Cricket and Crown, as
7 Plaintiff does not contest the citizenship of Cricket and Crown as alleged in Defendants’
Notice of Removal. “Cricket is a citizen of Georgia, Delaware, Texas, New York, and Illinois.”
Doc. 1 at 4. “Crown is a citizen of both Alaska and Texas.” Id.
8 Plaintiff argues that despite the unambiguous language of § 1441(b)(1), “courts are not
prohibited from considering factual allegations that support an inference regarding the
citizenship of unnamed/fictitious defendants.” Doc. 8-1 at 8. Plaintiff’s argument relies on
Sligh v. Doe, which does not involve removal and was rendered prior to the 1988 amendment
of § 1441(b). See generally 596 F.2d 1169 (4th Cir. 1979). The 1988 amendment added §
1441(b)’s current language and was intended to create certainty as to removability and
prevent the “special difficulties” associated with fictitious defendants in diversity-based
removal. H.R. REP. N O. 100-889, at 71 (1988). Because removal statutes must be strictly
construed, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s argument in favor of the plain statutory language.
9 Weaver v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 939 F.3d 618, 623 (5th Cir. 2019).
10 Vargas-Sevilla v. K2 Industrial Services, Inc., No. 22-5480, 2023 WL 2674710, at *2 (E.D.
La. March 29, 2023) (denying remand after disregarding the citizenship of “John Doe 1”).
11 Id.
Case 2:25-cv-00812-JTM-KWR Document 11 Filed 11/14/25 Page 3 of 4

4
Plaintiff is a Louisiana citizen and Defendants Cricket and Crown are citizens
of Georgia, Delaware, Texas, New York, Illinois, and Alaska.12 Further, there
is no dispute that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Thus, the Court
has subject matter jurisdiction under § 1332(a). Accordingly, Defendants’
removal was proper.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 8) is
DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 14th day of November, 2025.
_________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12 See Doc. 1 at 2–4.
Case 2:25-cv-00812-JTM-KWR Document 11 Filed 11/14/25 Page 4 of 4