Essential Nutrition LLC v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-2158
ESSENTIAL NUTRITION LLC,
Plaintiff
VERSUS
STATE FARM FIRE AND
CASUALTY COMPANY,
Defendant
SECTION: “E” (1)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a motion to remand filed by Plaintiff Essential Nutrition, LLC
(“Essential”). 1 Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”) filed no
opposition to the motion to remand and confirmed to the Court that it has no objection
to the remand.
LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), when a case satisfies the requirements for
federal jurisdiction and is removable from state court, any notice of removal “shall be filed
within 30 days” of a defendant’s receipt of “the initial pleading setting forth the claim for
relief.” The time limit “is triggered ‘only when that pleading affirmatively reveals on its
face that the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount
of the federal court.’” 2 A petition that provides “specific damage estimates that are less
than the minimum jurisdictional amount, when combined with other unspecified damage
1 R. Doc. 8.
2 Bosky v. Kroger Tex., LP, 288 F.3d 208, 211 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Chapman v. Powermatic, Inc., 969
F.2d 160, 163 (5th Cir. 1992) (emphasis added)).
Case 2:25-cv-02158-SM-JVM Document 9 Filed 12/01/25 Page 1 of 3

2
claims, can provide sufficient notice that an action is removable so as to trigger the time
limit for filing a notice of removal.” 3
LAW AND ANALYSIS
On October 17, 2025, State Farm removed this case from the 29th Judicial District
Court for the Parish of St. Charles. 4 On October 30, 2025, Essential filed the instant
motion to remand, arguing that State Farm’s “Notice of Removal is untimely as it was
made more than 30 days after [State Farm] had notice that the matter sought damages
over $75,000.”5 Essential argues that the Petition—seeking $59,028.25 in damages plus
a 50% penalty of $29,514.12, totaling $88,542.37—affirmatively revealed on its face that
Essential was seeking damages in excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount. 6 State
Farm was served with the petition on June 16, 2025. 7 Accordingly, according to Essential,
State Farm’s removal on October 17, 2025 was filed well outside the applicable 30-day
removal period.8
The Court agrees. The allegations in the Petition facially revealed to State Farm
that Essential was seeking damages in excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount.
Essential sought $59,028.25 in contractual damages and asserted a claim for statutory
bad faith penalties of 50%, placing the amount in controversy above $75,000.
At the conclusion of the instant motion, Essential requests the Court award
attorneys’ fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).9 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), a plaintiff
3 Bosky v. Kroger Tex., LP, 288 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Marcel v. Pool Co., 5 F.3d 81, 82-85
(5th Cir. 1993)).
4 R. Doc. 1.
5 R. Doc. 8-1 at p. 4.
6 R. Doc. 8-1 at p.3.
7 R. Doc. 7-4 at p. 34.
8 R. Doc. 8-1 at pp. 2-4.
9 R. Doc. 8-1 at p. 4. Essential requests “attorneys’ fees, c0sts, and expenses incurred in connection with
filing this motion” only once at the conclusion and, besides the quoted language, does not expand upon its
request or make arguments as to why it is entitled to the attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.
Case 2:25-cv-02158-SM-JVM Document 9 Filed 12/01/25 Page 2 of 3

3
seeking remand may be entitled to attorneys’ fees and other just costs associated with an
improvident removal by a defendant. Although the statute authorized such an award, it
does not require one; rather, the Court has discretion to determine whether the
circumstances surrounding the removal warrant such an award.10 In exercising that
discretion, the district court does not consider the removing defendant's motivations for
removing the case but instead consider only whether the removing defendant had an
“objectively reasonable” basis for removal. 11
The Court finds that an award of costs and fees to Essential is appropriate in this
case.
Accordingly,
CONCLUSION
IT IS ORDERED that Essential’s motion to remand is GRANTED.12
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the 29th Judicial
District Court for the Parish of St. Charles.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Essential’s request for attorneys’ fees and
costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) is GRANTED. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge
van Meerveld for a determination of the appropriate amount of attorneys’ fees and costs.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 1st day of December, 2025.
________________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10 See, e.g., Valdes v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 199 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 2000) (“There is no automatic
entitlement to an award of attorneys’ fees. Indeed, the clear language of the statute makes such an award
discretionary.”).
11 Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Sabre, Inc., 694 F.3d 539, 541-42 n. 2 (5th Cir. 2012).
12 R. Doc. 8.
Case 2:25-cv-02158-SM-JVM Document 9 Filed 12/01/25 Page 3 of 3