Courtney Curry, et al. v. Premier Entertainment Shreveport, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHREVEPORT DIVISION

COURTNEY CURRY, et al. CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-1566 VERSUS JUDGE ALEXANDER C. VAN HOOK PREMIER ENTERTAINMENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY SHREVEPORT, et al.

ORDER Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation, R. Doc. 22, to deny the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, R. Doc. 16. The Magistrate Judge correctly decided that the Plaintiffs have not pointed to any event that triggered the 30-day removal period more than 30 days before the case was removed. The July 12, 2025, email was not “unequivocally clear and certain to start the time limit running for notice of removal under the [third] paragraph of [28 U.S.C.] § 1446(b).” See Bosky v. Kroger Tx., LP, 288 F.3d 208, 211 (5th Cir. 2002) (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, timeliness is not at issue. However, the petition and knowledge that Ms. Mayfeild underwent surgery were sufficient for the removing defendant “to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.” Id. at 210.

Therefore, having considered the Report and Recommendation, the written objections, and after a de novo review of the record, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and the reasons articulated therein.

IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, R. Doc. 16, is DENIED.

DONE AND SIGNED at Shreveport, Louisiana, this 24th day of February, 2026.

ALEXANDER C, VAN HOOK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE