Richard-Flenory v. CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc. - Hulen Mall Store et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
BEYLA Z. RICHARD-FLENORY 	§
§
V. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-66-P
§
CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, INC- 	§
HULEN MALL STORE, ET AL. 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND
Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Beyla Z. Richard-Flenory’s Motion to
Remand to State Court (“Motion to Remand”) [doc. 6], filed January 21, 2026. Having carefully
considered the motion and response, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion be
DENIED1 for the reasons stated in Defendants’ response. 	Specifically, the Court notes that, in
her Petition filed in state court, “Plaintiff [alleges that she] purchased a 2015 Nissan Sentra from
CarMax Hulen Mall on June 15, 2024.” 	(Defendants’ Notice of Removal (“Defs.’ Not. of
Removal”) at Exhibit (“Ex.”) B-2, p. 3.) 	On December 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed this suit against
Defendants in state court, alleging claims for discrimination under the Texas Commission on
Human Rights Act, fraud/deceptive trade practices under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act (“DTPA”), and the sale of an unsafe vehicle/negligence.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446(b) and (c), Defendant timely removed the case from state
court based on diversity of citizenship. 	See also 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 	While Plaintiff claims that
there is no federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship because she does not seek
1 The Court notes that a motion to remand a case to state court has been deemed by the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals to be a dispositive matter. See Davidson v. Georgia-Pacific, L.L.C., 819 F.3d 758, 765 (5th Cir. 2016)
(“We therefore join the uniform view of the courts of appeals that have considered this question and hold that a
motion to remand is a dispositive matter on which a magistrate judge should enter a recommendation to the district
court subject to de novo review.”).
Case 4:26-cv-00066-P-BJ Document 22 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
damages exceeding $75,000, Plaintiff in her state-court Petition sought damages of, inter alia,
$41,524.38, which includes $15,935.38 for the purchase price of the automobile and monetary
damages of “$25,589 for lost wages, emotional distress, transportation costs, and discriminatory
treatment.”2 	(Defs.’ Not. of Removal at Ex. B-2, p. 6; Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s
Motion to Remand at 18.) “[T]he Fifth Circuit and various district courts have clarified statutory
damages under the DTPA should be considered in analyzing the amount in controversy.”
Jacquez v. Compass Bank, No. EP-15-CV-00026-FM, 2015 WL 11539510, at *4 (W.D. Tex.
Mar. 19, 2015); see Gore v. LexisNexis Risk Sols., No. 3:23-CV-683-L-BH, 2023 WL 8360070,
at *2-3 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2023). 	Thus, as trebling Plaintiff’s damages of $41,524.38 would
clearly 	exceed 	$75,000, 	the 	Court 	FINDS, 	CONCLUDES, 	and 	RECOMMENDS 	that
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [doc. 6] be DENIED.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to an action has the right to serve and file
specific written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate
Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation (“FCR”) within fourteen (14) days
after the party has been served with a copy of such FCR. 	The United States District Judge need
only make a de novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge’s
proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file, by the date stated above, a specific written objection
to a proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain
2 In her Motion to Remand, Plaintiff claims that she “seeks $25,596[, as opposed to $25,589,] in damages,
including” the refund of the purchase price of the 2015 Nissan Sentra, transportation costs, lost wages, and
emotional distress damages. (Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (“Pl.’s Mot.”) at 1-2.) While Plaintiff in her Petition
clearly seeks the refund of the purchase price of the 2015 Nissan Sentra in addition to $25,589 in damages, even
assuming she had intended to seek a total of only $25,596 as stated in her motion, trebling of this amount would still
exceed $75,000.
Case 4:26-cv-00066-P-BJ Document 22 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
error or manifest injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal
conclusions accepted by the United States District Judge. 	See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds,
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).
ORDER
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is hereby ORDERED that each party is granted until March
16, 2026, to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed
findings, conclusions and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections are filed
and the opposing party chooses to file a response, the response shall be filed within seven (7)
days of the filing date of the objections.
SIGNED March 2, 2026.
____________________________________
JEFFREY L. CURETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00066-P-BJ Document 22 Filed 03/02/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>