Coleman v. Lowes Home Centers L L C, 1:20-cv-00804

On June 28, 2019, Coleman (Louisiana domiciliary) was injured in an automobile collision allegedly caused by Charles Jones, who was driving in the course and scope of employment for Lowe’s.
Coleman sued Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. (LLC properly named Lowe’s Home Centers, L.L.C.), National Union Fire Insurance Co., Ryder, and Jones in Rapides Parish Ninth Judicial District Court seeking > $75,000 in damages and asserting respondeat superior liability against Lowe’s.
Defendants removed to federal court on June 24, 2020, asserting diversity jurisdiction (amount in controversy undisputed). At removal, Jones (a Louisiana citizen) had not yet been served; sheriff attempts had failed and a process server later served Jones on July 2, 2020.
Coleman moved to remand after Jones was served, arguing service destroyed complete diversity and divests the federal court of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Defendants argued post-removal service of a forum-state defendant does not divest jurisdiction and relied on the Fifth Circuit’s snap-removal analysis in Texas Brine.
The magistrate judge distinguished Texas Brine, relied on precedent that a non-diverse co-defendant’s citizenship must be considered, and recommended remand for lack of diversity jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether post-removal service of a forum-state (non-diverse) defendant destroys diversity and requires remand	Service of Jones (a Louisiana citizen) after removal means complete diversity no longer exists; remand required	Because Jones was unserved at the time of removal, his citizenship may be ignored and removal remains proper	Remand recommended — the court held the presence/citizenship of the non-diverse co-defendant defeats diversity jurisdiction and divests the court of subject-matter jurisdiction
Whether the snap-removal/forum-defendant rule (Texas Brine) allows ignoring an unserved forum defendant	Texas Brine does not change that a non-diverse co-defendant’s citizenship counts to defeat diversity	Texas Brine permits a non-forum defendant to remove before a forum defendant is ‘properly joined and served’ (snap removal)	Texas Brine distinguished: it did not control here because the facts differ (no complete diversity existed); the forum-defendant rule’s application here defeats jurisdiction
Whether defendants met their burden to establish diversity jurisdiction at removal	Coleman argued defendants failed to show complete diversity because a non-diverse defendant was named	Defendants argued they established diversity among the served defendants and amount in controversy	Defendants failed to meet their burden; remand recommended for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction

Texas Brine Co. v. American Arbitration Ass’n, 955 F.3d 482 (5th Cir. 2020) (interprets §1441(b)(2) and recognizes snap removal when forum defendant not yet properly served)
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Deshotel, 142 F.3d 873 (5th Cir. 1998) (holding an unserved co-defendant’s citizenship may defeat diversity and cannot be ignored)
Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2005) (complete diversity required for federal diversity jurisdiction on removal)
Mumfrey v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 719 F.3d 392 (5th Cir. 2013) (removing party bears burden to prove diversity jurisdiction)
In re Exxon Chemical Fire, 558 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2009) (forum-defendant rule is procedural and distinct from §1332 jurisdictional requirements)
St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250 (5th Cir. 1998) (jurisdictional facts are assessed at the time of removal)