Fike v. Morrow, et al

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

GERRI FIKE CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO: 26-729

LAMONT MORROW ET AL. SECTION “H”

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 7). For the
following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Gerri Fike filed this action in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans for injuries she sustained in an automobile accident on June
9, 2024. Defendant Empire and Marine Insurance Company (“Empire”) was
added to the state court action by amended petition and served on January 8,
2026. Empire removed the action to this Court on April 8, 2026 on the basis of
Case 2:26-cv-00729-JTM-KWR Document 10 Filed 08/14/26 Page 1 of 4

2

diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff now moves for remand to state court, arguing
that Defendant’s removal was untimely. Defendant opposes.

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 removing party to show “that federal jurisdiction exists and that
removal was proper.”
2
When determining whether federal jurisdiction exists,
courts consider “the claims in the state court petition as they existed at the
time of removal.”
3

LAW AND ANALYSIS
Defendant removed this matter to this Court based on diversity
jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not contest that jurisdiction is present; rather, she
has moved to remand this action to state court, arguing that removal was
untimely. “[I]f the case stated by the initial pleading is removable, then notice
of removal must be filed within thirty days from the receipt of the initial
pleading by the defendant.”
4
“[I]f the case stated by the initial pleading is not
removable, then notice of removal must be filed within 30 days from the receipt
of an amended pleading, motion, order, or other paper from which the

1
28 U.S.C. § 1441.
2
Barker v. Hercules Offshore, Inc., 713 F.3d 208, 212 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting
Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 722 (5th Cir. 2002)).
3
Manguno, 276 F.3d at 723.
4
Decatur Hospital Authority v. Aetna Health, Inc., 854 F.3d 292, 297 (5th Cir. 2017)
(quoting Chapman v. Powermatic, Inc., 969 F.2d 160, 161 (5th Cir. 1992)).
Case 2:26-cv-00729-JTM-KWR Document 10 Filed 08/14/26 Page 2 of 4

3

defendant can ascertain the case is removable.”
5
The untimeliness of a removal
petition is grounds for remand pursuant to § 1447(c).
6
Removal statutes should
be strictly construed, and any doubt should be resolved in favor of remand.
7

Plaintiff argues that Defendant was aware that the value of her claim
exceeded the jurisdictional amount when it was served with the petition on
January 8, 2026, making the removal on April 8, 2026 untimely. Defendant
argues that it was not aware that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000
until it received confirmation of such in an email from Plaintiff’s counsel on
April 2, 2026. Accordingly, the Court must consider whether the initial petition
triggered the thirty-day period for removal. In Chapman v. Powermatic, Inc.,
the Fifth Circuit held that the thirty-day removal period is triggered only
where the initial pleading “affirmatively reveals on its face that the plaintiff is
seeking damages in excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount of the federal
court.”
8
“Ultimately, Chapman lays out a bright line rule requiring the
plaintiff, if he wishes the thirty-day time period to run from the defendant’s
receipt of the initial pleading, to place in the initial pleading a specific
allegation that damages are in excess of the federal jurisdictional amount.”
9

Plaintiff’s petition does not state an amount in controversy but alleges
that Plaintiff sustained “cervical and lumbar spine sprain[s] and full disability”

5
Id.
6
BEPCO, L.P. v. Santa Fe Minerals, Inc., 675 F.3d 466, 470 (5th Cir. 2012) (citations
omitted).
7
Manguno, 276 F.3d at 723; Camellia Grill Holdings, Inc. v. Grill Holdings, LLC, No.
15-3795, 2015 WL 5775003, at *1 (E.D. La. Sept. 30, 2015).
8
Chapman v. Powermatic, Inc., 969 F.2d 160 (5th Cir. 1992); Mumfrey v. CVS
Pharmacy, Inc., 719 F.3d 392, 399 (5th Cir. 2013
).
9
Mumfrey, 719 F.3d at 399.
Case 2:26-cv-00729-JTM-KWR Document 10 Filed 08/14/26 Page 3 of 4

4

and that she seeks several categories of damages including medical expenses,
pain and suffering, and lost wages. Pursuant to Chapman, these allegations
are insufficient to start the running of the removal clock where they do not
“affirmatively reveal” that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional
amount. Further, courts have routinely held that “such conclusory allegations,
without more, do not establish the threshold amount in controversy.”
10

Accordingly, service of the initial petition on Defendant did not trigger the
removal clock. Plaintiff does not present any other arguments that removal
was untimely or otherwise improper.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is DENIED.

New Orleans, Louisiana this 14th day of August, 2026.

____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
Maurice v. Winn Dixie Montgomery, LLC, No. CV 24-2225, 2024 WL 4764449, at *3
(E.D. La. Nov. 13, 2024).
Case 2:26-cv-00729-JTM-KWR Document 10 Filed 08/14/26 Page 4 of 4