Pillette et al v. ITG Brands, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DORIS PILLETTE ET AL. 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-1730
ITG BRANDS, LLC ET AL. 	SECTION: “J”(5)
ORDER & REASONS
Considering the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand to State Court (Rec.
Doc. 21), filed by Plaintiffs, Kenya Pillette Jack, Shawna Pillette-Moll, Jared
Pillette, and Kayla Pillette,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is DENIED for the reasons
explained below.
In their motion, Plaintiffs argue that the case should be remanded to state
court because Defendant Huntington Ingalls Incorporated f/k/a Avondale Shipyards,
Inc. (“Huntington Ingalls”) failed to timely file its Notice of Removal (Rec. Doc. 1). It
is undisputed that Defendant Huntington Ingalls was served with Plaintiffs’ Third
Supplemental and Amended Petition for Damages on July 23, 2025. The issue before
the Court is when the Clerk’s Office officially accepted the Notice of Removal that
Huntington Ingalls initially filed on August 22, 2025.
Even though it was timely, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant Huntington
Ingalls’s August 22nd filing does not count due to a clerical error, i.e., because all
parties were not listed in the caption, and “[i]t was not until the third filing that
Case 2:25-cv-01730-CJB-MBN Document 129 Filed 11/17/25 Page 1 of 4

Counsel for Plaintiff finally got CM/ECF notification of electronic filing on August 26,
2025.” (Rec. Doc. 21-1, at 2). Accordingly, Plaintiffs argue that Huntington Ingalls
filed its Notice of Removal four or five days late. (See Rec. Doc. 21-1, at 2).
However, the Notice of Removal was filed and accepted by the Clerk’s Office,
notwithstanding any clerical errors in the case caption, on August 22, 2025, which
was within 30 days of Huntington Ingalls’s being served with Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that under the Eastern District of Louisiana’s
Administrative Procedures for Electronic Filings, “[f]ilings not accepted or entered by
the Clerk and/or omission of all named defendants from the Notice of Removal is not
a curable ‘error’ or ‘deficiency’ within the local rules; it is a statutory defect under 28
U.S.C. § 1446(a).” (Rec. Doc. 21-1, at 4). In this case, however, Huntington Ingalls’s
Notice of Removal was accepted by the Clerk on August 22, 2025, and the case was
assigned to a District Judge on that same date. The only hiccup was that the Notice
of Removal contained an error, specifically a clerical error, because it did not list all
Defendants in the case caption, but to remedy this clerical error, the Clerk’s Office
communicated directly with counsel for Huntington Ingalls on August 22 after
docketing the filing.
In their opposition, Plaintiffs focus on the distinction between “errors” and
“deficiencies” in electronic case filings and then argue that the clerical error in the
Notice of Removal was neither, but that instead it represents a statutory defect under
28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). However, this is simply not the case. Huntington Ingalls filed its
Notice of Removal timely on August 22, 2025. Furthermore, Huntington Ingalls avers
Case 2:25-cv-01730-CJB-MBN Document 129 Filed 11/17/25 Page 2 of 4

that 	not 	only 	did it 	receive 	an 	ECF 	notification 	email 	for this 	August 	22nd
transaction, but also, it served the “as-filed, ECF date-stamped copy of the Notice of
Removal” on all counsel, including Plaintiffs’, on August 22. (Rec. Doc. 50, at 2).
Plaintiffs failed to acknowledge this actual notice when they asserted that they did
not receive a CM/ECF notification of the electronic filing of Huntington Ingalls’s
Notice of Removal until August 26, 2025.
Finally, Plaintiffs make much of the fact that “courts must construe removal
statutes ‘narrowly, with doubts resolved in favor of remand to the state court.’” (Rec.
Doc. 21-1, at 3 (quoting Mendoza v. Old Republic Ins. Co., No. 11-3040, 2012 WL
2049525, at *4 (E.D. La. June 6, 2012)). While Plaintiffs state the law correctly,
Huntington Ingalls removed the instant case to federal court under the Federal
Officer Removal Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Huntington Ingalls correctly cites
the United States Supreme Court’s holding regarding this specific statute: “the right
of removal is absolute for conduct performed under color of federal office,” and “the
policy 	favoring 	removal 	‘should 	not 	be 	frustrated 	by 	a 	narrow, 	grudging
interpretation of § 1442(a)(1).’” (Rec. Doc. 50, at 5 (quoting Arizona v. Manypenny,
451 U.S. 232, 242 (1981)). Therefore, while Plaintiffs are correct that the 30-day
period for removal is a statutory requirement, when such notice is filed timely,
particularly under § 1442(a)(1), a court cannot second-guess the Clerk’s Office’s
determination that the notice was filed on a particular date. In this case, Defendant
Huntington Ingalls filed its Notice of Removal timely on August 22, 2025, within 30
days of being served with Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
Case 2:25-cv-01730-CJB-MBN Document 129 Filed 11/17/25 Page 3 of 4

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Rec. Doc. 21)
is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 17th day of November, 2025.
____________________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-01730-CJB-MBN Document 129 Filed 11/17/25 Page 4 of 4