IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION 

RENTWERX, LLC f/k/a SATXPM, LLC § 

Plaintiff, § 

§ 

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-cv-00354 

§ 

DEPOSITORS INSURANCE COMPANY, § 

BKCW, L.P. and BKCW § 

MANAGEMENT, L.L.C. § 

Defendant. § 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

Defendant Depositors Insurance Company (“Depositors”), through undersigned counsel 

and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 and 1446, files this Notice of Removal of the lawsuit 

captioned Rentwerx, LLC f/k/a SATXPM, LLC v. Depositors Insurance Company, BKCW, L.P. 

and BKCW Management, L.L.C.; Cause No. 2020CI02896; In the 408th Judicial District of Bexar 

County, Texas. 

I. 

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff RentWerx, LLC f/k/a SATXPM, LLC (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “RentWerx”) 

initiated the present action against Depositors, BKCW, L.P., and BKCW Management, L.L.C. by 

filing its Original Petition in Cause No. 2020CI02896; In the 408th Judicial District of Bexar 

County, Texas on February 11, 2020 (the “State Court Action”).1 

1. BKCW, L.P. appeared and answered on March 12, 2018, asserting a general 

denial to the claims and allegations in Plaintiff’s Original Petition.2 BKCW Management, L.L.C. 

has not yet appeared in the suit. 

1

 See Plaintiff’s Original Petition, attached as Exhibit A.

2

 See BKCW, L.P.’s Original Answer, attached as Exhibit B. 

Case 5:20-cv-00354 Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 1 of 7
2

2. Depositors appeared and answered on March 20, 2020, asserting a general denial to 

the claims and allegations made in Plaintiff’s Original Petition.3

3. Pursuant to 28 USC § 1446(a) a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served 

upon Defendant in the State Court Action are incorporated in Exhibit A. 

4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), promptly after filing this Notice of Removal, 

Defendant will give written notice of the removal to Plaintiff through his attorney of record, and 

to the clerk of the 408th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas. 

5. Pursuant to 28 USC §§ 1446(b)(1) and 1446(c)(1) this Notice of Removal has been 

timely filed within 30 days of service on Defendant of Plaintiff’s Original Petition and less than 

one year after the commencement of this action. 

II. 

JURISDICTION 

6. This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and the matter 

is removable to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) because there is complete diversity of 

citizenship between the properly joined parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 

exclusive of interest and costs. 

A. Diversity of Parties 

7. Plaintiff is a Texas limited liability company and maintains its principal place of 

business in Texas.4 Citizenship of a limited liability company is determined by the citizenship of 

all of its members.5 A diligent search of publicly available information on the members of 

RentWerx LLC has been conducted, and Bradley Larsen and Leah Larsen are the only members 

3

 See Depositor’s Original Answer, attached as Exhibit C.

4

 See Exhibit A, p. 1. 

5

 MidCap Media Finance, LLC v. Pathway Delta, Inc., 929 F.3d 310, 314 (5th Cir. 2019); Harvey v. Grey 

Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1080 (5th Cir. 2008) (holding that the citizenship of a limited liability 

company is determined by the citizenship of all of its members);

Case 5:20-cv-00354 Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 2 of 7
3

who can be identified based on public records. The Articles of Organization for a Texas Limited 

Liability Company Act filed by RentWerx, LLC identifies only Bradley Larsen and Leah Larsen 

as members. Also, the Texas Franchise Tax Public Information Report for the report year 2013 

that was filed by RentWerx, LLC with the Texas Secretary of State lists only Bradley Larsen and 

Leah Larsen as members. Bradley Larsen and Leah Larsen are citizens of the state of Texas. No 

other members of RentWerx, LLC were discovered through a diligent search and review of 

publicly available records and Nationwide has no reason to believe that any members share the 

citizenship of Nationwide. Based on information and belief after diligent inquiry, and pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), Plaintiff RentWerx, LLC is a citizen of the state of Texas. 

8. Defendant Depositors Insurance Company is organized under the laws of Ohio and 

maintains its principal place of business in Ohio. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), therefore, 

Depositors is a citizen of the State of Ohio. 

9. Upon information and belief, Defendant BKCW, L.P. is a Texas limited partnership, 

and Defendant BKCW Management, L.L.C. is a Texas limited liability company. However, the 

citizenship of Defendants BKCW, L.P. and BKCW Management, L.L.C. (collectively “BKCW”) 

should be disregarded because they have been improperly joined to this action. 6 

10. Accordingly, there is complete diversity between the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(a). 

i. Improper Joinder of BKCW, L.P. and BKCW Management, L.L.C.

11. A defendant is improperly joined if the moving party establishes that (1) the 

plaintiff has stated a claim against a defendant that it improperly alleges is non-diverse, or (2) the 

6

 BKCW’s joinder in this removal is not necessary since they are not properly joined parties. See Jernigan v. 

Ashland Oil Inc., 989 F.2d 812, 815 (5th Cir. 2003). 

Case 5:20-cv-00354 Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 3 of 7
4

plaintiff has not stated a claim against a defendant that it properly alleges is non-diverse.7

Because BKCW are non-diverse, only the latter option is implicated in this case. 

12. A non-diverse defendant is improperly joined if “there is no reasonable basis for 

the district court to predict that the plaintiff might be able to recover against” the non-diverse 

defendant.8 A non-diverse defendant is improperly joined if there is merely a theoretical 

possibility of recovery.9

13. Courts may “conduct a Rule 12(b)(6)-type analysis, looking initially at the 

allegations of the complaint to determine whether the complaint states a claim” against the nondiverse defendant.10 Under such analysis, the critical question is whether the allegations of 

Plaintiff’s Original Petition “contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim 

to relief under Texas law.”11 In undertaking this decision, courts are to apply the federal pleading 

standards to the asserted state court claims.12 The facts supporting removal must be judged at the 

time of removal.13 A plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds for entitlement to relief 

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action will not do.14 Put simply, the plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.”15

7

 Int’l Energy Ventures Mgmt., LLC v. United Energy Grp., Ltd., 818 F.3d 193, 208 (5th Cir. 2016). 

8

 Id. at 200 (citing Smallwood v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 385 F.3d 568, 573 (5th Cir. 2004)); see also Mumfrey v. 

CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 719 F.3d 392, 401 (5th Cir. 2013). 

9

 Kling Realty Co. v. Chevron USA, Inc., 575 F.3d 510, 513 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Campbell v. Stone Ins. 

Inc., 509 F.3d 665, 669 (5th Cir. 2007)).

10 Kling Realty Co., 575 F.3d at 513. 

11

 Trang v. Bean, 600 Fed. App’x 191, 193 (5th Cir. 2015) (internal citations omitted). 

12

 Int’l Energy Ventures, 818 F.3d at 200-08. 

13

 Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 233 F.3d 880, 883 (5th Cir. 2000). 

14 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Importantly, a court is not to strain to find inferences 

favorable to the plaintiff and is not to accept conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions, or legal 

conclusions. R2 Invs. LDC v. Phillips, 401 F.3d 638, 642 (5th Cir. 2005). 

15

 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 

Case 5:20-cv-00354 Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 4 of 7
5

14. In this case, Plaintiff has asserted causes of action against Depositors and BKCW, 

their insurance sales agency, for violations of Texas Insurance Code Chapter 541 and the Texas 

Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”).16 However, apart from alleging that Plaintiff purchased 

the policy at issue through BKCW, Plaintiff’s Original Petition fails to plead any factual allegations 

against BKCW to support their alleged causes of action.17 In the improper joinder context, “[m]erely 

lumping diverse and non-diverse defendants together in undifferentiated liability averments of a 

petition does not satisfy the requirement to state specific actionable conduct against the nondiverse defendant.”18 Because Plaintiff has failed to plead any specific actionable conduct against 

BKCW, Plaintiff has failed to state any claim for relief rendering removal proper on the basis that 

BKCW were improperly joined. 

15. Moreover, insurance sales agencies like BKCW may be liable under Chapter 541 of 

the Texas Insurance Code and the DTPA only under “appropriate circumstances,” limited to “when 

the agent misrepresents specific policy terms prior to a loss, and the insured’s reliance upon that 

misrepresentation actually causes the insured to incur damages.”19 Here, Plaintiff has failed to plead 

any facts under which a viable Chapter 541 or DTPA claim could be made. Thus, BKCW are 

improperly joined to this action. 

B. Amount in Controversy

16

 See Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, attached as Exhibit A, p. 7-10. (Plaintiffs have also asserted causes of action 

against Depositors only for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of 

Texas Insurance Code Chapter 542). 

17

 Id. at p. 2-6. 

18

 See Lakeside FBCC, LP v. Everest Indem. Ins. Co., No. SA-17-CV-00491-XR, 2017 WL 3448190, at *3 

(W.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2017) (Rodriguez, J.) (emphasis in original) (citing Stephenson v. Standard Ins. Co., 

No. SA:12-CV-01081-DAE, 2013 3146977, at *13 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2017) (Ezra, J.)); see also King v. 

Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., No. 1:09-CV-989, 2010 WL 2730890, at *3 (E.D. Tex. June 4, 2010). 

19

 Griggs v. State Farm Lloyds, 181 F. 3d 694, 701 (5th Cir. 1999) (emphasis added) (citing Liberty Mutual 

Ins. Co. v. Garrison Contractors, Inc., 966 S.W.2d 482 (Tex. 1998); and State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. 

Gros, 818 S.W.2d 908 (Tex. App. – Austin 1991, no writ)); see also Avila v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 

147 F. Supp. 2d 570, 581 (W.D. Tex. 1999) (holding that an insurance agent has no duty under Texas law 

to explain policy terms to an insured). 

Case 5:20-cv-00354 Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 5 of 7
6

16. It is facially apparent from Plaintiff’s live petition that the amount in controversy in 

this case exceeds $75,000 rendering removal proper. Generally, “the sum demanded in good faith in 

the initial pleading shall be deemed to be the amount in controversy.”20 Removal is proper if it is 

“facially apparent” from the complaint that the claims asserted exceed the jurisdictional amount.21 In 

addition, penalties, exemplary damages, and attorneys’ fees are included as part of the amount in 

controversy.22 

17. Here, Plaintiff seeks “monetary relief of over $1,000,000.”23 The threshold for 

diversity jurisdiction, $75,000, is therefore met by the allegations of Plaintiff’s Original Petition. 

18. The amount in controversy plainly exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and 

costs. Accordingly, the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(b) is satisfied. 

III. 

CONCLUSION 

19. Removal of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) is proper as the district courts of 

the United States have original jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and as all 

requirements for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446 have been met. 

20. WHEREFORE, Defendant Depositors Insurance Company hereby provides notice 

that this action is duly removed. 

20

 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2); see also Santiago v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 7:13-CV-83, 2013 WL 1880845, at *1 

(S.D. Tex. May 3, 2013). 

21

 Puckitt v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. G-09-0056, 2010 WL 2635626, at *3 (S.D. Tex. June 28, 2010)

(citing Allen v. R&H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1995)). 

22

 See H&D Tire & Automotive-Hardware, Inc. v. Pitney Bowes Inc., 227 F.3d 326, 330 (5th Cir. 2000); see 

also St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998). 

23

 See Exhibit A, at p. 1. 

Case 5:20-cv-00354 Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 6 of 7
7

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Patrick M. Kemp 

Patrick M. Kemp 

Texas Bar No. 24043751 

pkemp@smsm.com 

Robert G. Wall 

Texas Bar No. 24072411 

rwall@smsm.com 

Jacob S. Jones 

Texas Bar No. 24101975 

jjones@smsm.com 

Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney 

100 Congress Avenue, Suite 800 

Austin, Texas 78701 

(512) 476-7834 

(512) 476-7832 – Facsimile 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 

DEPOSITORS INSURANCE COMPANY 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been served 

via regular mail this the 20th day of March, 2020 to: 

Daniel O. Kustoff 

Melanie H. Sanders 

Taylor L. Crull 

Krustoff & Phipps, L.L.P. 

4103 Parkdale Street 

San Antonio, Texas 78229 

service@salegal.com 

msanders@salegal.com 

tcrull@salegal.com 

Scott F. Cline 

Thornton, Biechlin, Reynolds, & Guerra, LC 

100 N.E. Loop, Suite 500 

San Antonio, Texas 78216-4741 

scline@thorntonfirm.com 

/s/ Patrick M. Kemp 

Patrick M. Kemp 

Case 5:20-cv-00354 Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 7 of 7