Johnson v. Summit Hotels International, Inc et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DORIS JOHNSON 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO: 25-973
SUMMIT HOTELS
INTERNATIONAL, INC. ET AL. 	SECTION: “H”
ORDER AND REASONS
The 	Court 	now 	examines 	subject 	matter 	jurisdiction 	sua 	sponte.
Defendants have failed to adequately plead diversity jurisdiction in their
Notice 	of 	Removal. 	Accordingly, 	Defendants 	shall 	amend 	their 	Notice 	of
Removal to correct this jurisdictional defect within 20 days of the entry of this
Order.
This 	Court 	is 	duty-bound 	to 	examine 	the 	basis 	of 	subject 	matter
jurisdiction sua sponte.1 Subject matter jurisdiction in this case is premised
upon the Court’s diversity jurisdiction.2 Cases arising under § 1332 require
1 Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548, 565 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Union Planters Bank Nat’l
Ass’n v. Salih, 369 F.3d 457, 460 (5th Cir. 2004)).
2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Case 2:25-cv-00973-JTM-KWR Document 42 Filed 12/02/25 Page 1 of 5

2
complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy that exceeds
the sum of $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs.3
“The concept of complete diversity requires that all persons on one side
of the controversy be citizens of different states than all persons on the other
side.”4 For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the “citizenship of a LLC is
determined by the citizenship of all of its members.”5 Accordingly, the party
invoking federal jurisdiction must list each member and the citizenship of each
member of each limited liability company to properly allege diversity of
citizenship.6 Defendants have failed to adequately plead the citizenship of
Summit Hotel TRS 092, LLC.
Further, 	Defendants, 	as 	the 	removing 	parties, 	bear 	the 	burden 	of
demonstrating that the amount in controversy requirement is met and that
removal was proper.7 When determining whether federal jurisdiction exists,
courts consider “[t]he claims in the state court petition as they existed at the
time of removal.”8 In Louisiana, plaintiffs may not allege a specific amount of
3 Stiftung v. Plains Mktg., L.P., 603 F.3d 295, 297 (5th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted); 28
U.S.C. § 1332.
4 McClaughlin v. Mississippi Power Co., 376 F.3d 344, 353 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted).
5 Harvey v. Grey Wold Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1080 (5th Cir. 2008).
6 Bona Fide Demolition & Recovery, LLC v. Crosby Constr. Co. of Louisiana, Inc., No. 07–
3115, 2009 WL 413504, at *1 (E.D. La. Feb. 18, 2009) (citations omitted); see also Pyramid
Transp., Inc. v. Greatwide Dallas Mavis, LLC, No. 12–0149, 2013 WL 840664, at *6 (N.D.
Tex. Mar. 7, 2013) (“The citizenship of each member of a limited liability company must be
alleged.” (citations omitted)); Toney v. Knauf Gips KG, No. 12–638, 2012 WL 5923960, at *1
(M.D. La. Oct. 25, 2012) (“[T]o properly allege the citizenship of a limited liability company .
. . the party asserting jurisdiction must identify each of the entity’s members . . . and the
citizenship of each [member].” (internal footnote and citations omitted)).
7 Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002).
8 Id.
Case 2:25-cv-00973-JTM-KWR Document 42 Filed 12/02/25 Page 2 of 5

3
damages and may be awarded relief not requested in the pleadings.9 “When
the plaintiff’s complaint does not allege a specific amount of damages, the
removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the
amount 	in 	controversy 	exceeds 	[$75,000].”10 	“Proving 	a 	fact 	by 	a
‘preponderance of the evidence’ means showing that the existence of a fact is
more likely so than not.”11
The defendant may make this showing in either of two ways: (1)
by demonstrating that it is “facially apparent” that the claims are
likely 	above 	$75,000, 	or 	(2) 	“by 	setting 	forth 	the 	facts 	in
controversy—preferably in the removal petition, but sometimes by
affidavit—that support a finding of the requisite amount.”12
Removal, however “‘cannot be based simply upon conclusory allegations.’”13
On the face of Plaintiffs’ state court Petition, it is not apparent that the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Plaintiff alleges only an injury to her
left knee “and other parts of her mind and body.” She seeks damages for pain
and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, medical bills, and loss
of 	income. 	These 	allegations 	are 	insufficient 	to 	establish 	the 	amount 	in
controversy where the Court does not know the extent or severity of Plaintiff’s
injury.
9 Welch v. Occidental Fire & Cas. Co. of N.C., No. 23-5836, 2023 WL 8271613 (E.D. La. 2023)
(internal citations omitted); see also LA. CODE CIV. P. arts. 893 & 862.
10 DeAguilar v. Boeing Co., 11 F.3d 55, 58 (5th Cir. 1993).
11 Reed v. LKQ Corp., 436 F. Supp. 3d 892, 898 n.1 (N.D. Tex. 2020) (citing Herman &
MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. 375, 390 (1983)).
12 Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 171 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Allen v. R&H Oil &
Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1995) (emphasis in original)).
13 Felton v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 324 F.3d 771, 774 (5th Cir. 2003) (quoting Allen, 63 F.3d
at 1335).
Case 2:25-cv-00973-JTM-KWR Document 42 Filed 12/02/25 Page 3 of 5

4
Further, Defendants also argue that the Plaintiffs’ failure to allege that
the monetary value of their claims are less than $75,000, as required by
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 893, is further evidence that the
amount 	in 	controversy 	is 	met. 	“‘[T]he 	failure 	to 	include 	an 	Article 	893
stipulation alone is insufficient to establish that the jurisdictional minimum is
in controversy,’ but [the] omission is entitled to some consideration in the
jurisdictional amount inquiry.”14 Where “damage-related allegations in the
Petition provide little in terms of quantifiable damages,” as in Plaintiffs’ state
court Petition, “the fact that [Plaintiffs’ allegations] are also absent of an
Article 893 statement does not establish that the jurisdictional amount in
controversy has been satisfied.”15 Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant
has failed to satisfy its burden in showing by a preponderance of the evidence
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Defendants’ 	failure 	to 	properly 	allege 	the 	requisite 	amount 	in
controversy 	is 	not 	fatal.16 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1653 	provides 	that 	“[d]efective
allegations 	of 	jurisdiction 	may 	be 	amended, 	upon 	terms, 	in 	the 	trial 	or
appellate courts.” A district court’s decision to permit amendment under § 1653
turns 	on 	the 	nature 	of 	the 	jurisdictional 	defect.17 	Where 	“jurisdictional
problems are of the ‘technical’ or ‘formal’ variety, they fall squarely within the
ambit of § 1653.”18 Thus, amendment should be allowed where “‘diversity
14 Trahan v. Drury Hotels Co., LLC, CIV.A. 11-521, 2011 WL 2470982, at *4 (E.D. La. June
20, 2011) (citing Ford v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2009 WL 790150, at *4 (M.D. La.
Mar. 25, 2009)).
15 Id.
16 See Whitmire v. Victus Ltd., 212 F.3d 885, 887 (5th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
17 Id. at 888.
18 Id.
Case 2:25-cv-00973-JTM-KWR Document 42 Filed 12/02/25 Page 4 of 5

5
jurisdiction was not questioned by the parties and there is no suggestion in the
record that it does not in fact exist.’”19 The record in this matter does not reveal,
nor 	has 	any 	party 	argued, 	that 	diversity 	jurisdiction 	is 	not 	present.
Accordingly, Defendants are granted leave to amend the Notice of Removal to
allege “distinctly and affirmatively” the jurisdictional facts that give rise to
diversity jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Defendants have failed
to adequately allege the requisite amount in controversy. Defendants are
granted leave to amend the Notice of Removal within 20 days from the entry
of this Order. 	Failure to file timely an amended notice will result in remand
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the telephone preliminary status
conference is CONTINUED and RESET for December 30, 2025 at 1:40p.m. so
that Defendants can comply with this Order.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 1st day of December, 2025.
____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19 Stafford v. Mobil Oil Corp., 945 F.2d 803, 806 (5th Cir. 1991) (quoting Leigh v. Nat’l
Aeronautics & Space Admin., 860 F.2d 652, 653 (5th Cir. 1988)).
Case 2:25-cv-00973-JTM-KWR Document 42 Filed 12/02/25 Page 5 of 5