Bullock v. United Site Services of Mississippi, LLC et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JORDAN BULLOCK,
Plaintiff
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 26-1272
UNITED SITE SERVICES OF
MISSISSIPPI, LLC, ET AL.,
Defendants
SECTION: “E” (4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff Jordan Bullock’s Motion to Remand.1 Defendant
Christopher 	Brady 	filed 	an 	opposition. 2 	The 	parties 	requested 	leave 	to 	perform
jurisdictional 	discovery, 	which 	the 	Court 	granted.3 	Thereafter, 	both 	parties 	filed
supplemental memoranda. 4
BACKGROUND
On April 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed a petition in the Civil District Court for the Parish
of Orleans. 5 In his petition, Plaintiff alleges that on August 28, 2024 he was in an
automobile accident with Defendant Brady. 6 Plaintiff seeks to recover damages from
Brady for his allegedly negligent driving and originally also sought to recover damages
from Brady’s employer, United Site Services of Louisiana, Inc.7 The state court petition
asserted that Plaintiff was a citizen of Louisiana and that Defendant Brady was a citizen
of Texas, but it did not allege the citizenship of Defendant United Site Services of
1 R. Doc. 8.
2 R. Doc. 10.
3 R. Doc. 14.
4 R. Docs. 16 and 19.
5 See R. Doc. 1-1.
6 See id. at pp. 1-2.
7 Id. at pp. 2-3. As will be explained below, Plaintiff later dropped his claim against United Site Services of
Louisiana, Inc. and filed an Amended Complaint substituting United Site Services of Mississippi, LLC as
the proper defendant. See R. Docs. 15 and 20.
Case 2:26-cv-01272-SM-KWR Document 21 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 7

2
Louisiana, Inc.8 In the state court petition, Plaintiff asserts he “seeks total damages in
excess of $75,000.”9
On June 14, 2026, Defendant Brady removed the action to this Court. 10 In his
Notice of Removal, Brady asserted that federal subject matter jurisdiction was proper
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which grants district courts jurisdiction of all civil actions when
both the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the controversy is between citizens
of different states. 11 Defendant Brady asserted the amount in controversy was met because
the petition seeks “total damages in excess of $75,000.” 12 Defendant Brady further
asserted that complete diversity existed between the parties. Plaintiff in this action is a
citizen of Louisiana; Brady asserts that complete diversity exists because he is a resident
of Texas and because defendant United Site Services of Louisiana, Inc. was improperly
joined and cannot destroy complete diversity. 13 In support of his improper joinder
argument, Defendant Brady averred that his employer is United Site Services of
Mississippi, LLC—not United Site Services of Louisiana, Inc.—and attached a 2024
paystub from United Site Services of Mississippi, LLC to attest to the employment
relationship at the time of the incident.14 Defendant Brady argued that because Plaintiff
would be unable to establish a cause of action against United Site Services of Louisiana,
Inc., the defendant was improperly joined to the action and its citizenship may be ignored
for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. 15
8 Id. at p. 1.
9 Id. at p. 3.
10 R. Doc. 1.
11 Id. at p. 1.
12 Id. at p. 4.
13 See id. at pp. 2-4.
14 See R. Doc. 1-1 at p. 5.
15 R. Doc. 1 at p. 3.
Case 2:26-cv-01272-SM-KWR Document 21 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 7

3
On June 23, 2026, the Court held a telephone status conference with the parties to
discuss the improper joinder issue. 16 On July 13, 2026, Plaintiff timely filed the present
motion to remand.17 In the Motion, the Plaintiff disputes the improper joinder claim and
also raises question as to the citizenship of Defendant Brady. 18 Pointing to the 2024
paystub from United Site Services of Mississippi, LLC, Plaintiff notes that it lists
Defendant Brady as having a Louisiana address—as opposed to the Texas address at
which Defendant Brady was served in 2026. 19 If Defendant Brady were indeed a citizen of
Louisiana, this would defeat complete diversity between him and Plaintiff. Defendant
Brady thereafter filed into the 	record a declaration establishing his employment
relationship with United Site Services of Mississippi, LLC.20 On August 4, 2026 Brady
filed an opposition in which he requested time to perform jurisdictional discovery. 21
On August 19, 2026, the Court held another telephone status conference.22 At the
conference, Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged that Defendant Brady’s employer was
United Site Services of Mississippi, LLC. 23 However, Plaintiff’s counsel was not satisfied
as to Defendant Brady’s citizenship, and consequently the Court granted the parties leave
to perform jurisdictional discovery. 24 On September 18, 2026, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint 	dismissing 	claims 	against 	United 	Site 	Services 	of 	Louisiana, 	Inc. 	and
substituting United Site Services of Mississippi, LLC as the proper defendant. 25
16 R. Doc. 6.
17 R. Doc. 8.
18 See R. Doc. 8-1 at pp. 1-3.
19 See id.; R. Doc. 1-1 at p. 5.
20 R. Doc. 11-2.
21 R. Doc. 10 at p. 5.
22 R. Doc. 14.
23 See id.
24 Id.
25 R. Doc. 15.
Case 2:26-cv-01272-SM-KWR Document 21 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 7

4
The jurisdictional discovery period failed to produce new evidence. Counsel for
both parties scheduled Defendant Brady for a deposition on the morning of September
18, 2026, the same day the Court had set as a deadline to file supplemental memoranda. 26
Defendant Brady did 	not show up to the deposition. 27 Plaintiff filed his supplemental
memorandum that afternoon, and Defendant filed his supplemental memorandum on
September 25, 2026.28 The Court now analyzes the diversity issue based on the evidence
presented in the Notice of Removal.
LEGAL STANDARD
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; without jurisdiction conferred by
statute, they lack the power to adjudicate claims.” 29 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal
district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil matters in which the plaintiffs are
citizens of different states from the defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000.30 Only if these requirements are met may a defendant remove the action to
federal 	court. 31 	The 	removing 	party 	bears 	the 	burden 	of 	showing 	subject-matter
jurisdiction exists and removal is proper. 32
If a non-diverse defendant has been “improperly joined,” a defendant may
nonetheless remove the action, and the improperly joined defendant’s citizenship is
disregarded 	for 	purposes 	of 	determining 	whether the 	federal court has diversity
jurisdiction. 33 In cases removed based on diversity jurisdiction and improper joinder, the
removing party must show either: “(1) actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts,
26 R. Doc. 16 at p. 1.
27 Id.
28 R. Docs. 16 and 19.
29 In re FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Products Liab. Litig. (Miss. Plaintiffs), 668 F.3d 281, 286 (5th Cir.
2012).
30 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
31 See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
32 See Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002).
33 Flagg v. Stryker Corp., 819 F.3d 132, 136 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc).
Case 2:26-cv-01272-SM-KWR Document 21 Filed 10/15/26 Page 4 of 7

5
or (2) inability of the plaintiff to establish a cause of action against the non-diverse party
in state court.”34 “In determining the validity of an allegation of improper joinder, the
district court must construe factual allegations, resolve contested factual issues, and
resolve ambiguities in the controlling state law in the plaintiff’s favor.”35 “The court may
conduct a Rule 12(b)(6)-type analysis, looking initially at the allegations of the complaint
to determine whether the complaint states a claim under state law against the in-state
defendant.” 36
“Diversity jurisdiction rests on the facts that exist at the time of removal[.]” 37
“”[W]hen removal is challenged on a motion to remand, the removing defendant must
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction existed at the time of
removal.”38 “In determining diversity jurisdiction, the state where someone establishes
his domicile serves a dual function as his state of citizenship.” 39 “A person’s state of
domicile presumptively continues unless rebutted with sufficient evidence of change.” 40
LAW AND ANALYSIS
I. 	United Site Services of Louisiana, Inc. was improperly joined.
Defendant submitted a declaration stating that United Site Services of Louisiana,
Inc. was not the employer of Defendant Brady. 41 Based on this declaration, Plaintiff’s
counsel acknowledged that Defendant Brady’s employer was not United Site Services of
34 Travis v. Irby, 326 F.3d 644, 646-47 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Griggs v. State Farm Lloyds, 181 F.3d 694,
698 (5th Cir. 1999)).
35 Id. (citing Burden v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 60 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir. 1995)).
36 Smallwood, 385 F.3d at 573.
37 Jones v. Schuler, No. 2:26-CV-00081, 2026 WL 2691474 (W.D. La. Sept. 14, 2026) (quoting Badeaux v.
Goodell, 358 F. Supp. 3d 562, 570 (E.D. La. 2019)).
38 Rey v. LCMC Healthcare Partners, LLC, No. CV 21-1188, 2021 WL 3674358 at *3 (E.D. La. Aug. 19, 2021)
(citing Stockton v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2020 WL 7264810, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2020)).
39 Preston v. Tenet Healthsystem Mem’l Med. Ctr., Inc., 485 F.3d 793, 798 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Stine v.
Moore, 213 F.2d 446, 448 (5th Cir. 1954)).
40 Id. (citing Acridge v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc., 334 F.3d 444, 448 (5th Cir. 2003)).
41 R. Doc. 11-2.
Case 2:26-cv-01272-SM-KWR Document 21 Filed 10/15/26 Page 5 of 7

6
Louisiana, Inc.42 Further, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint dismissing his claims
against United Site Services of Louisiana, Inc. and substituting United Site Services of
Mississippi, LLC as the proper defendant.43 Accordingly, Plaintiff will be unable “to
establish a cause of action against the non-diverse party in state court.”44 The Court finds
that United Site Services of Louisiana, Inc. was improperly joined and can be ignored for
purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction. The Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s claims
against United Site Services of Louisiana, Inc. 45
II. 	There is complete diversity between the parties because Defendant
Brady was a citizen of Texas at the time of filing in state court and at
the time of removal.
As Plaintiff is a citizen of Louisiana—and because the proper employer co-
defendant is a citizen of Mississippi—the question of this Court’s jurisdiction turns on the
citizenship of Defendant Brady.
Plaintiff’s state court petition, filed on April 23, 2026, alleges that Defendant Brady
was domiciled in the State of Texas. 46 The petition requested Defendant Brady be served
at a Texas address. 47 Defendant Brady was successfully served at this Texas address on
May 15, 2026. 48
In his notice of removal, Defendant Brady attached a paystub dated September 6,
2024, nearly two years prior to the filing of the state court petition.49 This paystub reflects
a Louisiana address. 50
42 See R. Doc. 14 at p. 1.
43 R. Doc. 15.
44 Travis v. Irby, 326 F.3d 644, 646-47 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Griggs v. State Farm Lloyds, 181 F.3d 694,
698 (5th Cir. 1999)).
45 R. Doc. 20.
46 R. Doc. 1-1 at p. 1.
47 Id. at p. 4.
48 See R. Doc. 7-1 at pp. 11-13.
49 R. Doc. 1-1 at p. 5.
50 See id.
Case 2:26-cv-01272-SM-KWR Document 21 Filed 10/15/26 Page 6 of 7

7
Plaintiff argues that, under these facts, Defendant has not met his burden to
establish subject matter jurisdiction. 51 Plaintiffs note that any doubt concerning the basis
of jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand.52 Defense counsel counters that
Defendant Brady’s last known address is the Texas address at which he was served in May
of 2026.53
Defendant Brady must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was a
citizen of Texas at the time of removal. 54 The Court finds that he has done so. Plaintiff
alleged in his state court petition that Defendant Brady was domiciled in Texas, 55 and the
fact that Brady was successfully served at his Texas address merits higher credence than
the fact that he may have held a Louisiana address two years prior. There is complete
diversity among the parties, and so Defendant Brady has met his burden to establish this
Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
CONCLUSION
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Remand is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 15th day of October, 2026.
________________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
51 R. Doc. 16 at p. 2.
52 See id. (citing Ragas v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 705 F. Supp. 3d 604, 609 (E.D. La. 2023) (citing Acuna v.
Brown & Root, 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2000)).
53 R. Doc. 19 at p. 1.
54 See Rey v. LCMC Healthcare Partners, LLC, No. CV 21-1188, 2021 WL 3674358 at *3 (E.D. La. Aug. 19,
2021) (citing Stockton v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2020 WL 7264810, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2020)).
55 R. Doc. 1-1 at p. 1.
Case 2:26-cv-01272-SM-KWR Document 21 Filed 10/15/26 Page 7 of 7