NOTICE OF REMOVAL Page 1 

2102731 v.1

0185/00984

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LEEANN SPELL

Plaintiff,

§

§

§

v. §

§

CIVIL ACTION NO.

JAMES HATFIELD; DEBRICK 

TRUCK LINE COMPANY, AND D.K. 

CHAPMAN TRANSPORT, LLC

§

§ 

§ 

§

Defendants. §

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS:

COME NOW, Defendants James Hatfield and Debrick Truck Line Company, and hereby 

petition this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 (b), and 1446 for removal on the basis of 

diversity jurisdiction to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas

Division, of the action numbered and styled Leeann Spell v. James Hatfield; Debrick Truck Line 

Company; and D.K. Chapman Transport, LLC., Cause No. DC-21-03279, in the 191st Judicial 

District Court of Dallas County, Texas, (hereinafter the “State Court Case”), and in support thereof 

would respectfully show this Court as follows: 

I.

REMOVAL IS PROPER AND TIMELY

1. This matter was originally filed on March 12, 2021, in the 191st Judicial District 

Court of Dallas County, Texas. Defendants James Hatfield and Debrick Truck Line Company were 

served with Plaintiffs’ Original Petition (“Petition”) on March 17, 2021 and the case was timely 

removed to Federal Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Despite the case pending in Federal Court 

for over a year, Plaintiff has now added Plaintiff’s employer at the time of the subject incident, 

Case 3:22-cv-01629-S Document 1 Filed 07/27/22 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1
NOTICE OF REMOVAL Page 2 

2102731 v.1

0185/00984

D.K. Chapman Transport, LLC, as a defendant to this suit, and either through mistake or fraud 

alleges her employer was the employer of Defendant James Hatfield, to destroy diversity and have 

the case remanded. The Court has now ordered the case be remanded after Plaintiff repeatedly 

failed to show there was no longer complete diversity of citizenship for this case. Plaintiff failed 

to comply with this court’s order on the need to show diversity of citizenship exists, but of course 

Plaintiff had a motivation to not show diversity of citizenship so that the case can be remanded. 

See Document No. 45. The allegations against D.K. Chapman Transport, LLC were made either 

mistakenly, or through fraud, as Plaintiff’s own evidence produced confirm this was Plaintiff’s 

employer, and not Defendant James Hatfield’s employer. Defendants have now confirmed these 

allegations are false, and on July 26, 2022, the owner for Debrick Truck Line Company, Ken 

Debrick, confirmed and signed an affidavit confirming this information alleged by Plaintiff 

through her Third Amended Petition was false, and this document is sufficient to make the case 

removable again. See Ken Debrick Affidavit attached as Exhibit 7. Defendants James Hatfield and 

Debrick Truck Line Company again point to the court the fraudulent joinder, and remove the 

matter back to Federal Court, and are therefore the Removing Defendants.

II.

COMPLETE DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP EXISTS

2. The district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction over this action 

based on diversity of citizenship among the parties. Defendants assert that D.K. Chapman 

Transport, LLC. was impermissibly joined—through mistake or fraud—and this improper joinder 

does not destroy federal court’s jurisdiction over this matter as the proper parties are diverse in 

citizenship. Plaintiffs in this action are citizens of a different state from the Defendants, and no 

Defendant is a citizen of Texas. Complete diversity exists.

Case 3:22-cv-01629-S Document 1 Filed 07/27/22 Page 2 of 10 PageID 2
NOTICE OF REMOVAL Page 3

2102731 v.1

0185/00984

3. Plaintiff Leeann Spell was a citizen of Dallas County, Texas at the time this action 

was filed. Consequently, Plaintiff Leeann Spell was at the time this action was commenced, and 

is currently, a citizen of the State of Texas and no other state. 

4. Defendant James Hatfield was a citizen of Johnson County, Kansas at the time this 

action was filed. Consequently, Defendant James Hatfield was at the time this action was 

commenced, and is currently, a citizen of the State of Kansas and no other state.

5. Defendant Debrick Truck Line Company is incorporated in the State of Kansas with 

its principal place of business now and at the time the action was commenced, in Paola, Miami 

County, Kansas. Therefore, Defendant Debrick Truck Line Company was at the time this action 

was commenced, and is currently, a citizen of the State of Kansas and no other state.

6. Defendant D.K. Chapman Transport, LLC, is a Texas corporation doing business 

in Dallas County, Texas, that has been fraudulently or mistakenly joined to destroy diversity of 

citizenship, despite the case pending in Federal Court for over a year. On Page 3, Section 8 of 

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit 8. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant James 

Hatfield was the operator of an 18-wheeler [tractor-trailer] “operating his 18-wheeler and towing 

Unit 3, owned by D.K. Chapman Transport, LLC.” Then on page 4, Section 10 of Plaintiff’s 

Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff either fraudulently or mistakenly alleges and refers to 

Defendant D.K. Chapman Transport, LLC as the “owner of the vehicles driver by Defendant James 

Hatfield.” The same section further goes on to indicate that D.K. Chapman Transport, LLC

“entrusted their vehicles to Defendant James Hatfield.” Defendant D.K. Chapman Transport, LLC. 

is a separate entity who actually employed Plaintiff herself, not Defendant James Hatfield as the 

Complaint alleges. See Plaintiff’s payroll records produced as part of this lawsuit and attached as 

Exhibit 9. Plaintiff has either mistakenly or fraudulently sued Defendant D.K. Chapman 

Case 3:22-cv-01629-S Document 1 Filed 07/27/22 Page 3 of 10 PageID 3
NOTICE OF REMOVAL Page 4 

2102731 v.1

0185/00984

Transport, LLC, and joined as a party in order to destroy diversity of citizenship.1

7. Plaintiff has now fraudulently joined D.K. Chapman Transport, LLC as a defendant 

to the lawsuit, who was Plaintiff’s own employer at the time of the subject incident that forms 

the basis of this litigation. The joinder of D.K. Chapman Transport, LLC, is fraudulent as there is 

no real connection in the subject matter of Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants James Hatfield 

and Debrick Truck Line Company. Plaintiff alleges in her Second and Third Amended 

Complaints, that this entity, D.K. Chapman Transport, LLC, was the owner of the vehicle operated 

by Defendant James Hatfield at the time of the subject incident, and employed as well as 

negligently entrusted the equipment to Defendant James Hatfield at the time of the subject incident, 

which was a clear mistake or an outright fraudulent allegation to make in light of what the evidence 

shows. This constitutes outright fraud in the plaintiff’s pleadings, as outlined in B., Inc. v. Miller 

Brewing Co., 663 F.2d 545, 549 (5th Cir. 1981). 

8. D.K. Chapman Transport, LLC is therefore an improper party, not connected to the 

defendant driver involved in incident that gave rise to this lawsuit. Defendant, D.K. Chapman 

Transport, LLC is an improper party and as such its citizenship is irrelevant and should be 

disregarded. See Tedder v. F.M.C. Corp., 590 F.2d 115, 117 (5th Cir. 1979) (stating that if the 

claim against a local defendant is deemed fraudulent, lack of diversity will not prevent removal). 

Therefore, complete diversity exists. 

1 Federal Courts use a myriad of tests to determine if diversity jurisdiction exists when claims of fraudulent joinder 

are alleged. The most widely used is the “No Possibility Test” requiring the removing party to show “either that there 

is no possibility that the plaintiff would be able to establish a cause of action against the in-state defendant in state 

court[,] or that there has been outright fraud in the plaintiff’s pleadings of jurisdictional facts.” B., Inc. v. Miller 

Brewing Co., 663 F.2d 545, 549 (5th Cir. 1981).

Case 3:22-cv-01629-S Document 1 Filed 07/27/22 Page 4 of 10 PageID 4
NOTICE OF REMOVAL Page 5 

2102731 v.1

0185/00984

III.

SNAP REMOVAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1441(b)(2) 

9. Alternatively, district courts of the United States also have original jurisdiction over 

this action based on diversity of citizenship among the parties when an out-of-state defendant 

removes a state court case to federal court before an in-state Defendant is properly joined and 

served pursuant to the plain language in 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). 

10. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has affirmed the use of “snap 

removal” by an out-of-state defendant to remove a state court case to federal court before service 

is effectuated on in-state defendants. Normally, under the local defendant rule, removal to federal 

court is not permitted where a defendant is a citizen of the forum state. Relying on the plain 

language of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2), which limits the forum defendant rule to parties “properly 

joined and served,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Texas Brine Company, L.L.C. 

v. American Arbitration Association, Inc., (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2020), held that an out-of-state 

defendant served with process can immediately remove to federal court before in-state defendants 

are served. In Texas Brine, the Fifth Circuit eliminated all doubt when it expressly held that as 

long as all other prerequisites to removal are met, a non-forum defendant may remove a case so 

long as the forum defendant is not yet “properly joined and served” at the time of removal. Id.

11. Therefore, in the present case, Defendant , D.K. Chapman Transport, LLC, is not 

only an improper party but also has not yet been “properly joined and served,” and therefore 

Defendants James Hatfield and Debrick Truck Line Company may remove the case to federal 

court since all other prerequisites for removal have been met.

Case 3:22-cv-01629-S Document 1 Filed 07/27/22 Page 5 of 10 PageID 5
NOTICE OF REMOVAL Page 6 

2102731 v.1

0185/00984

IV. 

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY

12. In addition to complete diversity of citizenship, the complaint must meet this 

Court’s $75,000.00 jurisdictional threshold. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(C)(2)(A). The method for properly 

asserting the amount in controversy are outlined in section 1446 of the United States Code. 28 

U.S.C § 1446. First, the Notice of Removal may assert the amount in controversy, if the initial 

pleadings were not required to include a specific monetary demand or permit damages in excess 

of the pleadings. Id. § 1446(C)(2)(A). Second, removal is proper upon showing by the 

preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds this Courts $75,000.00 

threshold. Id. § 1446(C)(2)(B). Further, parties may rely on an estimation of damages calculated 

from the allegations in the complaint to prove the amount in controversy. McPhail v. Deere & 

Co., 529 F.3d 947, 951 (10th Cir. 2008); Meridian Sec. Ins. v. Sadowski, 441 F.3d 536, 541 (7th

Cir. 2006); Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 171 F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1999). Once a defendant 

satisfies its burden, any plaintiff wanting to remand the cause to back to state court must prove to 

a legal certainty that, if successful, it would not be able to recover more than the jurisdictional 

amount. See McPhail, 529 F.3d at 955. 

13. A review of the Plaintiffs’ Original Petition in the instant case clearly shows that 

the alleged damages easily exceed $75,000.00. Plaintiffs’ Original Petition alleges that “Plaintiff

seeks monetary relief of over $250,000.00, but not more than $1,000,000.00.” (Pls. Orig. Pet., pg. 1,

¶ 2). Plaintiff claims the following damages: physical pain and suffering in the past and future; 

mental anguish in the past and future; physical impairment in the past and future; property damage 

and loss of use of Plaintiff’s vehicle; lost wages in the past and loss of earning capacity in the 

future; and medical expenses in the past and future. (Pls. Orig. Pet., pg. 5, ¶ 7). Based on Plaintiffs’ 

claimed damages, it is clear that Defendants will be subjected to exposure beyond the $75,000.00 

Case 3:22-cv-01629-S Document 1 Filed 07/27/22 Page 6 of 10 PageID 6
NOTICE OF REMOVAL Page 7 

2102731 v.1

0185/00984

jurisdictional threshold of this Court. Plaintiff has therefore affirmatively pled monetary relief 

sought over $250,000.00. (Pls. Orig. Pet., pg. 1, ¶ 2). 

14. Defendants assert that the amount in controversy in this matter exceeds the 

$75,000.00 threshold exclusive of interests and costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). As plead the 

amount in controversy in this case is in excess of $250,000.00. (Pls. Orig. Pet., pg. 1, ¶ 2). 

V.

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

15. Removal of this action is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, since it is a civil action 

brought in a state court, and the federal district courts have original jurisdiction over the subject 

matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because Plaintiff Leeann Spell and Defendants James Hatfield and 

Debrick Truck Line Company are diverse in citizenship.

16. Defendant, D.K. Chapman Transport, LLC, has not been properly joined and served 

as of the date of filing this Removal, therefore the Removing Defendants do not have to seek that 

entities consent or joinder. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). Defendant , D.K. Chapman Transport, 

LLC., was fraudulently or mistakenly joined to destroy diversity and its consent is not required. 

See Jernigan v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 989 F.2d 812, 815 (5th Cir.1993); see also Rico v. Flores, 481 

F.3d 234, 239 (5th Cir.2007). Alternatively, should this Court conclude that Defendant D.K. 

Chapman Transport, LLC was not fraudulently or mistakenly joined to destroy diversity, then 

removal is still appropriate under the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2), which limits the 

forum defendant rule to parties “properly joined and served,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Fifth Circuit in Texas Brine Company, L.L.C. v. American Arbitration Association, Inc., (5th Cir. 

Apr. 7, 2020). 

Case 3:22-cv-01629-S Document 1 Filed 07/27/22 Page 7 of 10 PageID 7
NOTICE OF REMOVAL Page 8 

2102731 v.1

0185/00984

17. By virtue of filing this Notice of Removal, the Removing Defendants do not waive 

their right to assert any motions to transfer venue or dismiss, including any F.R.C.P. Rule 12 

motions, permitted by the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

18. All of the papers on file in the State Court case at the time of removal are attached 

hereto as Exhibit 2. Those papers include copies of the Court’s Docket Sheet and Plaintiffs’ 

Original Petition, Plaintiff’s Jury demand, the Original Notice of Removal to Federal Court filed 

on March 29, 2021, Federal Court order remanding case on June 14, 2021 along with the Federal 

Civil Docket and a Jury Trial Notice entered on June 22, 2022. 

19. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), written notice of filing of this Notice will be given 

to all adverse parties promptly after the filing of this Notice.

20. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), a true and correct copy of this Notice will be filed 

with the Court Clerk of the 191st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas promptly after 

the filing of this Notice.

VI. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, James Hatfield and Debrick Truck Line Company, pursuant to these 

statutes and in conformance with the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1446, remove this action 

for trial from the 191st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas to this Court, on the 27TH

day of July 2022. 

Case 3:22-cv-01629-S Document 1 Filed 07/27/22 Page 8 of 10 PageID 8
NOTICE OF REMOVAL Page 9 

2102731 v.1

0185/00984

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ David L. Sargent 

DAVID L. SARGENT

State Bar No. 17648700 

david.sargent@sargentlawtx.com 

 GERARDO E. ALCANTARA

 State Bar No. 24109569 

 jerry.alcantara@sargentlawtx.com

SARGENT LAW, P.C.

1717 Main Street, Suite 4750 

Dallas, Texas 75201-7346 

Telephone: (214) 749-6000 

Facsimile: (214) 749-6100 

 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS 

JAMES HATFIELD AND DEBRICK 

TRUCK LINE COMPANY

Case 3:22-cv-01629-S Document 1 Filed 07/27/22 Page 9 of 10 PageID 9
NOTICE OF REMOVAL Page 10

2102731 v.1

0185/00984

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 27TH day of July 2022, a true and correct copy of the above and 

foregoing instrument was forwarded to the following counsel via certified mail return receipt 

requested:

Brennan Clay 

Shelly Greco 

WITHERITE LAW GROUP, PLLC

10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 400 

Dallas, Texas 75231-2228 

/s/ David L. Sargent 

DAVID L. SARGENT

Case 3:22-cv-01629-S Document 1 Filed 07/27/22 Page 10 of 10 PageID 10