govinfo:USCOURTS-laed-2_26-cv-00411-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 
 
 
MARK BARRIOS AND JUDY BARRIOS, CIVIL ACTION 
 
VERSUS NO. 26-00411 
 
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY SECTION “N” 
 
 
ORDER & REASONS 
 
 B efore the Court is a motion to remand by Plaintiffs Mark Barrios and Judy 
Barrios.1 Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”) 
responded in opposition,2 and the Barrios replied in further support of their motion.3 
Having considered the parties’ memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the 
Court issues this Order & Reasons granting the motion to remand. 
I. Factual Background 
On January 5, 2026, the Barrios filed a Petition for Damages in the 22nd 
Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany, Louisiana, against State Farm, 
following damage to their home from a wind and hail event on January 8, 2024.4 The 
Barrios allege that State Farm failed to properly adjust and timely pay their 
insurance claim under their homeowners insurance policy. They seek contractual 
damages as well as bad-faith damages under La. R.S. 22:1892. 
 
1 Rec. Doc. 7. 
2 Rec. Doc. 10. 
3 Rec. Doc. 11. 
4 Rec. Doc. 1-1. 

On February 26, 2026, State Farm filed a Notice of Removal 5 with this Court 
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446, alleging complete diversity of 
citizenship between the parties and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000. 6 
The Barrios moved to remand the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) on March 
18, 2026. 
II. Law & Analysis 
A. Federal jurisdiction must exist at the time of removal. 
 Any civil action brought in a state court of which the district courts have 
original jurisdiction may be removed to the proper district court.7 District courts have 
original jurisdiction of all civil actions in which the matter in controversy exceeds the 
sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different 
states.
8 “The amount in controversy is ‘not proof of the amount the plaintiff will 
recover’ but ‘an estimate of the amount that will be put at issue in the course of the 
litigation.’”9 
Federal courts have a constitutional obligation to satisfy ourselves that 
jurisdiction is proper before engaging in the merits. 10 Because federal courts are 
courts of limited jurisdiction, the removal statute is strictly construed, and any doubts 
or ambiguities are resolved against removal and in favor of remand. 11 “We must 
 
5 Rec. Doc. 1. 
6 State Farm received service of the Barrios’ petition through the Louisiana Secretary of State on 
January 29, 2026, making the notice of removal timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). See Rec. Doc. 1-1. 
7 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 
8 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). 
9 Durbois v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 37 F.4th 1053, 1057 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting McPhail v. 
Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947, 956 (10th Cir. 2008)). 
10 See Ziegler v. Champion Mortg. Co., 913 F.2d 228, 229 (5th Cir. 1990). 
11 Vantage Drilling Co. v. Su, 741 F.3d 535, 537 (5th Cir. 2014). 

presume that a suit lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of 
establishing federal jurisdiction rests on the party seeking the federal forum.”12 
B. State Farm has not satisfied the amount -in-controversy 
requirement. 
Here, there is no dispute that complete diversity of citizenship exists under 28 
U.S.C. § 1332. The Barrios are citizens of the State of Louisiana, while State Farm is 
incorporated in and has its principal place of business in the State of Illinois. The 
parties’ disagreement centers on the amount in controversy. 
 Subject to certain exceptions not relevant here, Louisiana prohibits a plaintiff 
from alleging or demanding a specific monetary amount of damages in a civil 
petition.
13 Accordingly, for removal from Louisiana courts, the Fifth Circuit has 
“modified the usual rule for determining whether the amount in controversy is 
present.”
14 The party seeking to maintain federal jurisdiction must “establish by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.” 15 
The party may do this either by demonstrating that it is “facially apparent” from the 
petition that the requisite amount was in controversy, or “‘by setting forth the facts 
in controversy preferably in the removal petition, but sometimes by affidavit that 
support a finding of the requisite amount.’”
16 The court may rely on summary 
judgment-type evidence if the amount in controversy is not apparent from the face of 
 
12 Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001). 
13 La. Code Civ. Proc. 893(A)(1). 
14 Grant v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co. L.P., 309 F.3d 864, 868 (5th Cir. 2002). 
15 Id. 
16 Id. (quoting Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1995)). 

the petition.17 Such evidence may include “discovery material and post-institution or 
post-removal affidavits, exhibits, reports, declarations, emails, or letters, especially 
when the facts relating to jurisdiction are ambiguous or disputed.”18 
 It is a “fundamental principle” that federal jurisdiction must exist at the time 
a case is removed to federal court. 19 Thus, “[t]he jurisdictional facts that support 
removal must be judged at the time of the removal.”20 This principle aligns with the 
“time-of-filing rule” applied to complaints originally filed in federal court. Like the 
removal rule, the time-of-filing rule holds that jurisdiction “‘depends upon the state 
of things at the time of the action brought.’”21 “While post-removal affidavits may be 
considered in determining the amount in controversy at the time of removal, such 
affidavits may be considered only if the basis for jurisdiction is ambiguous at the time 
of removal.”22 Such affidavits do not deprive the court of jurisdiction “if it is facially 
apparent from the petition that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 at the 
time of removal.”
23 
 The Barrios allege two claims: breach of insurance contract and bad faith in 
violation of La. R.S. § 22:1892. Consistent with Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure 
article 893, the Barrios’ petition alleges damages with little specificity . The prayer 
 
17 Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Love, 71 F.4th 348, 351-52 (5th Cir. 2023). 
18 14B Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 
3705, at 518-30 (5th ed. 2023). 
19 See GlobeRanger Corp. v. Software AG U.S. of Am., Inc., 836 F.3d 477, 488 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing 
Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 305 U.S. 534, 537 (1939)). 
20 Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 233 F.3d 880, 883 (5th Cir. 2000). 
21 Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 570-71 (2004) (quoting Mollan v. 
Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537, 539 (1824)). 
22 Gebbia, 233 F.3d at 883. 
23 Id. 

for relief seeks a judgment for “all damages sustained ,” bad faith damages, and 
“penalties, attorney fees, expert fees, and all costs, together with legal interest.” 24 
The alleged damages include damage to the building and other structures on the 
Barrios’ property; mitigation, remediation, and repair costs; diminution in value; loss 
and damage due to delays and/or inability to make repairs due to inadequate 
insurance payments; loss of use; mental anguish, consequential damages, and other 
damages covered under the homeowners policy such as demotion and debris removal; 
and attorneys’ fees and costs. 25 The petition does not detail the degree of damage 
sustained to the Barrios’ property. 
Although State Farm contends that it is facially apparent from the allegations 
in the petition that the jurisdictional threshold is met, the Court disagrees. The types 
of damages identified in the petition shed little light on the total value of the claims. 
“Courts have routinely held that pleading general categories of damages, such as pain 
and suffering, disability, lost wages, loss of earning capacity, medical expenses, etc., 
without any indication of the amount of the damages sought, is insufficient to meet 
defendant’s burden using the facially apparent test.”
26 Moreover, the cases cited by 
State Farm as justifying reliance on the face of such allegations do not survive 
scrutiny. In Bryan v. Walmart Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229052, 2023 WL 8890341, 
at *3 (E.D. La. Dec. 26, 2023), the court considered pre - and post -suit settlement 
demand letters—not mere facial allegations —to find the defendant had satisfied its 
 
24 Rec. Doc. 1-1 at 9. 
25 Rec. Doc. 1-1 ¶ 27. 
26 Young v. Popeyes La. Kitchen, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170925, 2024 WL 4263173, at *2 (E.D. 
La. Sept. 23, 2024) (internal citations omitted) (citing cases). 

burden of showing the necessary amount in controversy . And in Nunez v. Allstate 
Insurance Company, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84118, 2007 WL 3407463, at *1 (E.D. La. 
Nov. 13, 2007), the plaintiff’s petition included detailed allegations of harm, such as 
that his home was a “total loss ” and his personal property was “totally damaged, 
ruined or lost” as a result of the storm. Accordingly, the Court finds that the amount 
in controversy is not facially apparent from the Barrios’ petition. 
 The Court thus turns to evidence of the facts in controversy to determine if 
State Farm has met its burden of showing the amount in controversy at the time of 
removal—here, February 26, 2026—exceeded $75,000. 27 The parties identif y three 
figures as relevant evidence. First, State Farm issued to the Barrios an estimate that 
the replacement cost value of the Barrios’ covered damages was $848.21 . This 
estimate, dated July 31, 2025, fell below the $4300 policy deductible .28 Second, the 
Barrios submitted to State Farm an estimate, dated December 23, 2024, and prepared 
by the contractor Irwin & Associates, estimating that repairs would cost $89,070.24.29 
Third, counsel for the Barrios submitted to State Farm on January 9, 2026, a 
settlement demand totaling $74,816.57, inclusive of policy benefits, statutory 
penalties and attorneys’ fees, based on an estimate prepared by another contractor, 
Southern Oaks Roofing.30 
 T he Barrios also submitted with their motion to remand affidavits in which 
they disavow any reliance on the Irwin & Associates estimate. In these affidavits, the 
 
27 See Grant, 309 F.3d at 868. 
28 Rec. Doc. 1-2. 
29 Rec. Doc. 1-3. 
30 Rec. Doc. 1 at 4 n.1; Rec. Doc. 7-1 at 2. 

Barrios stipulate that the amount they sought at the time they filed their petition on 
January 5, 2026, was not based on the Irwin & Associates estimate; that they have 
not sought any amount in excess of $74,816.57 since they submitted their settlement 
demand to State Farm on January 9, 2026; and that they will not “seek, accept, or 
receive” any amount in excess of $75,000 in connection with their claims in this case.31 
State Farm acknowledges that the Barrios have submitted estimates and 
documentation “from various contractors throughout the life of their claim .”32 Yet 
State Farm relies only on the estimate that was above $75,000—the Irwin & 
Associates estimate—for its argument that it has “met its burden” of demonstrating 
the amount in controversy is sufficient for federal jurisdiction .33 State Farm argues 
that it is appropriate for the Court to rely on this estimate alone because the Barrios 
only “abandoned” it in a post -removal decree to attempt to circumvent federal 
jurisdiction. But this timeline is not supported by the record. 
The Barrios submitted their settlement demand for an amount less than 
$75,000 four days after they filed their petition and weeks before State Farm sought 
to remove the case to federal court. It is undisputed that this settlement demand was 
based upon a contractor’s estimate and included penalties and attorneys’ fees.
34 Both 
pre- and post-complaint demand letters may be used as evidence of the amount in 
 
31 Rec. Doc. 7-1 at 2. 
32 Rec. Doc. 1 at 4 n.1. These estimates include: (1) $52,809.08 from Gulf Coast Construction & 
Restoration; (2) $29,750 from Superior Roofing; and (3) $89,070.24 from Irwin & Associates. Rec. 
Doc. 10 at 8. And, as noted previously, State Farm submitted its own estimate of $848.21. 
33 Rec. Doc. 10 at 6. 
34 See Rec. Doc. 1 at 4 n.1. 

controversy when they reflect an honest, good-faith assessment of the claim value.35 
In some cases, a settlement offer may be less than the damages a plaintiff expects to 
receive at the end of a successful trial on the merits because the offer is discounted 
by the risk of loss.36 In other instances, a settlement offer may overstate the value of 
the claims due to posturing and puffery. 37 Here, however, the settlement offer 
appears to be an honest assessment of the value of the Barrios’ claims. It was tethered 
to a contractor’s estimate that appears to fall between a higher contractor’s estimate 
previously submitted by the Barrios , on one hand, and State Farm’s own lower 
estimate of the damage as well as other lower contractors’ estimates, on the other . 
Because it was transmitted to State Farm within days of the filing of the Barrios’ 
petition, and there are no intervening events or estimates in the record between the 
filing of the petition and State Farm’s notice of removal, the settlement offer appears 
to reflect the value of the claims at and around the time the petition was filed and the 
case was removed . The Barrios’ stipulations provide further confirmation of this 
valuation and timing. 
Finally, State Farm argues that the Court should apply a presumption in favor 
of removal because the Barrios did not allege in their petition that federal courts lack 
jurisdiction due to insufficiency of damages under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure 
article 893. Even if it were appropriate to apply a presumption in favor of federal 
 
35 See Addo v. Globe Life & Accident Ins. Co., 230 F.3d 759, 762 (5th Cir. 2000) (“a post-complaint 
letter, which is not plainly a sham, may” be evidence of the amount-in-controversy requirement). 
36 See Pollet v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 46 F. App’x 226, 2002 WL 1939917, at *1 n.5 (5th Cir. 2002). 
37 See Woods v. Patrons Oxford Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133126, 2022 WL 2965923, at *3 
(E.D. La. July 27, 2022). 

jurisdiction where a litigant fails to follow this state procedural rule , the evidence 
weighs against finding the requisite amount in controversy here. 
 Put simply, State Farm has not carried its burden of establishing that the 
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. As a defendant seeking to remove this case 
to federal court, State Farm has the burden of establishing the Court’s jurisdiction 
by a preponderance of the evidence . The preponderance -of-the-evidence standard 
requires that the fact or showing at issue is more likely than not.
38 
 It is simply not credible for State Farm to contend that it was facially apparent 
from the Barrios’ petition that their damage exceeds $75,000 when State Farm 
offered the Barrios less than $ 900 for their claim s, even after the Barrios had 
submitted the Irwin & Associates estimate . If the damage to the Barrios’ property 
was facially in excess of $75,000, as State Farm claims, one would expect an 
experienced insurer such as State Farm to offer a figure closer to that amount. Both 
State Farm’s claim amount an d contractor estimate s fell below this jurisdictional 
threshold, and the Barrios disclaim any reliance on the single data point —the Irwin 
& Associates estimate—th at exceeds it in their petition or settlement offer. 
III. Conclusion 
Accordingly, 
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for remand is GRANTED. 
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 7th day of May, 2026. 
 
 
 
 
38 See Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 329 (2007). 

 
________________________________ 
ANNA ST. JOHN 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 

Passage view · GavelSight