Reported / Citable
Background
On June 3, 2024, a motor vehicle collision occurred in Harris County, Texas, injuring Jessie Morales, his wife Mayra Jimenez, and their three minor children. Morales was driving; Dumensil, operating a tractor-trailer for defendant BPD Transport, LLC, allegedly abruptly merged into their lane causing the collision. Plaintiffs filed suit in Texas state court on March 21, 2025, naming Dumensil, BPD Transport, and Fontaine Commercial Trailer, Inc. as defendants and claiming over $1 million in damages.
The original petition expressly alleged that Morales and Jimenez were “citizens and residents of Harris County, Texas” and identified Dumensil as a Louisiana resident, BPD Transport as a Louisiana LLC, and Fontaine as a Delaware corporation. However, the petition did not specify the minor plaintiffs’ citizenship—identifying them only as children of Morales and Jimenez without disclosing their care, custody, or domiciliary circumstances.
On November 6, 2025, defendants removed to federal court invoking diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) because the petition affirmatively revealed all parties were diverse. Defendants contended the petition lacked sufficient information regarding the minor plaintiffs’ citizenships until discovery responses in January 2026 confirmed those plaintiffs had lived in Texas for ten years.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion to remand, holding that removal was timely. Although the original petition explicitly alleged Morales and Jimenez were Texas citizens—clearly establishing they were diverse from the non-Texas defendants—the petition did not affirmatively reveal the minor plaintiffs’ citizenships. Under Fifth Circuit precedent, federal courts applying an objective standard must examine only the pleading’s face to determine if a suit is removable; what defendants subjectively knew is irrelevant. Because the petition failed to affirmatively disclose all parties’ citizenship, it did not trigger the 30-day removal deadline under § 1446(b)(1). Instead, the deadline ran under § 1446(b)(3) from receipt of “other paper” making it “unequivocally clear and certain” that all plaintiffs were diverse—which occurred via discovery responses establishing minor plaintiffs’ ten-year Texas domicile. Removal was therefore timely.
The court also struck defendants’ amended notice of removal as procedurally improper. Under § 1653, parties may amend notices of removal only to cure “technical” defects, such as failing to allege a party’s citizenship. Defendants’ amendment attempted to justify the timing of removal by raising, for the first time, that uncertainty regarding minor plaintiffs’ citizenship delayed the removal deadline—a new legal theory addressing procedural defects, not a technical correction. Therefore, § 1653 did not authorize the amendment, and defendants’ post-hoc request for leave to amend was denied.
The court granted plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint to add Fast Trac Transportation, LLC as a defendant but recommended denying plaintiffs’ conditional request to remand if Fast Trac were a Texas citizen. An LLC’s citizenship is determined by that of all its members. Evidence—including a sworn declaration by Fast Trac’s principal—demonstrated that Fast Trac’s members are citizens of Louisiana, California, and Wyoming, not Texas. Therefore, adding Fast Trac would not destroy diversity jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- When an initial pleading fails to affirmatively reveal all parties’ citizenship, the 30-day removal deadline runs instead from “other paper” (including discovery responses) making it unequivocally clear that the suit is removable—not from the pleading’s service.
- A defendant’s subjective knowledge or diligence in discovering a plaintiff’s citizenship is irrelevant to the timeliness of removal; only the objective face of the pleading controls.
- An LLC’s citizenship depends on the citizenship of all its members, not its principal place of business or principal owner’s residence.
- Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and § 1653, amendment to a notice of removal must address technical defects, not add new legal theories or justify procedural departures.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the removal timeline when a state-court pleading fails to disclose all parties’ citizenship. Although plaintiffs had named defendants from Louisiana and Delaware while identifying themselves as Texas residents, the omission of facts concerning the minor plaintiffs’ domicile meant the petition did not trigger the strict 30-day removal deadline. Instead, defendants could remove within 30 days of receiving discovery establishing that all parties were diverse. The ruling prevents plaintiffs from forcing remand by strategically omitting information about party citizenship in the original pleading—an important protection for defendants who would otherwise face tactical disadvantages in establishing removability.
The decision also constrains defendants’ procedural flexibility: once a notice of removal is filed, defendants cannot later amend it to introduce new justifications for removal timing or to remedy procedural defects. The distinction between curing technical deficiencies versus adding new legal theories limits defendants’ ability to rehabilitate removal decisions after facing a motion to remand, promoting finality and requiring defendants to exercise care when initially removing cases.