Verdan Procurement and Consulting, LLC d/b/a VPC Chemicals v. Solugen, Inc., 4:25-cv-00010

Verdan Procurement and Consulting, LLC (VPC Chemicals) sued Solugen, Inc. and other individuals in Texas state court for state-law claims exceeding $75,000 in damages.
The initial and amended state court petitions did not specify the citizenship or members of the plaintiff LLC.
Defendants filed special exceptions seeking more information about the plaintiff's citizenship but received no clarification in the pleadings.
On December 11, 2024, plaintiff filed a corporate disclosure statement identifying its sole member, Andre Verdant, as a citizen of Brazil, establishing diversity.
Defendants removed the case to federal court within 30 days of receiving the corporate disclosure.
Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing removal was untimely and that defendants should have discovered the citizenship earlier.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of Removal	Defendants should have discovered diversity jurisdiction earlier from business records, public documents, or correspondence	Removal clock started only when clear evidence of citizenship was provided; prior documents didn't affirmatively reveal grounds for removal	Removal was timely based on receipt of corporate disclosure statement
Obligation to Investigate Citizenship	Defendants should have inquired further based on available information	No duty to investigate beyond the pleadings unless jurisdiction is clear	Defendants not required to investigate further if pleading does not reveal removability
Basis for Removal	Defendants could remove on "information and belief" about citizenship	Removal must be based on facts affirmatively revealed in the pleadings	Removal only proper when grounds are clear on the face of filings
Subjective Knowledge as Basis for Removability	Defendants' business interactions and emails gave them knowledge of citizenship	Jurisdiction must be shown by facts in the record, not subjective knowledge	Removability depends on record facts, not defendants' subjective knowledge

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (removal jurisdiction must strictly comply with statutory limits)
Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720 (removing party bears burden of establishing federal jurisdiction)
Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244 (presumption against subject-matter jurisdiction in federal court)
Stevens v. Nichols, 130 U.S. 230 (diversity must exist at time of filing and removal)
Beiser v. Weyler, 284 F.3d 665 (federalism concerns require ambiguities be resolved against removal)
Chapman v. Powermatic, Inc., 969 F.2d 160 (defendants not obligated to investigate removability beyond the face of pleadings)
Bosky v. Kroger Texas, Ltd. Partnership, 288 F.3d 208 (removal only proper when initial pleading clearly reveals removability)