NOTICE OF REMOVAL Page 1

4853-9915-0374

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JERRY HARPER, 

Plaintiff,

v.

IRVING CLUB ACQUISITION CORP. 

D/B/A LAS COLINAS COUNTRY

CLUB AND CLUBCORP, INC., 

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS: 

COMES NOW, Defendant Irving Club Acquisition Corp., d/b/a Las Colinas Country Club 

(“Defendant”), and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, 1441(b), and 1446, files this Notice of 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 Jerry Harper v. Irving Club Acquisition 

Corp., d/b/a Las Colinas Country Club and ClubCorp, Inc.; Cause No. DC-22-05235; In the 95th

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

would respectfully show unto the Court as follows:

I.

REMOVAL IS TIMELY

1. Defendant Irving Club Acquisition Corp., d/b/a Las Colinas Country Club was 

served with Plaintiff’s Original Petition (the “Petition”) on June 2, 2022. This Notice of Removal 

is filed within thirty (30) days of service of the Petition and is timely filed pursuant to section 

1446(b) of the United States Code. 28 U.S.C.§ 1446(b). Defendant seeks to remove the matter and 

is therefore the Removing Defendant.

Case 3:22-cv-01445-E Document 1 Filed 07/05/22 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1
NOTICE OF REMOVAL Page 2

4853-9915-0374

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. Plaintiff in this action is a citizen of a different 

state from Defendant, and no Defendant is a citizen of the same state. As a result, complete 

diversity exists.

3. Plaintiff Jerry Harper was a citizen of the State of Louisiana at the time this action 

was filed. Consequently, Plaintiff Jerry Harper was at the time this action was commenced, and is 

currently, a citizen of the State of Louisiana. 

4. Defendant Irving Club Acquisition Corp d/b/a Las Colinas Country Club, is a 

corporation formed under the laws of the State of Texas, having its principal place of business 

now, and at the time this action was commenced, in the State of Texas. Defendant Irving Club 

Acquisition Corp d/b/a Las Colinas Country Club is now, and was at the time this action was 

commenced, a citizen of the State of Texas.

5. Defendant ClubCorp, Inc., is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of 

Delaware, having its principal place of business now, and at the time this action was commenced, 

in the State of Texas. Defendant ClubCorp, Inc. is now, and was at the time this action was 

commenced, a citizen of the State of Delaware and the State of Texas.

III.

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY

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

Court’s $75,000.00 jurisdictional threshold. 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 

Case 3:22-cv-01445-E Document 1 Filed 07/05/22 Page 2 of 6 PageID 2
NOTICE OF REMOVAL Page 3

4853-9915-0374

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 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.

7. A common-sense review of the Plaintiff’s Original Petition in the instant case 

clearly shows that the alleged damages easily exceed $75,000.00. Plaintiff alleges damages and 

seeks relief over $250,000.00 but no more than $1,000,000.00 (Pl. Orig. Pet., Sec. 2.1). The 

Petition alleges that Plaintiff Jerry Harper injured his knee and back in the incident made the basis 

of this lawsuit. (Pl Orig. Pet., Sec. 5.2). As a result of the incident Plaintiff Jerry Harper alleges he

was injured and makes a claim for damages to include past and future: pain and mental anguish; 

physical impairment; and disfigurement. (Pl. Orig. Pet., Sec. 7.1). 

8. Federal courts have held that cases of severe personal injury “often will subject a 

tortfeasor to possible exposure well beyond” the federal jurisdictional minimum and that such 

exposure is facially apparent. De Aguilar v. Boeing, 11 F.3d 55, 58 (5th Cir. 1993). Based on 

Plaintiff’s claimed damages, it is clear that Defendant will be subjected to exposure beyond the 

$75,000.00 jurisdictional threshold of this Court.

9. Additionally, according to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169, claimants who 

affirmatively plead that they seek only monetary relief aggregating $100,000.00 or less must bring 

Case 3:22-cv-01445-E Document 1 Filed 07/05/22 Page 3 of 6 PageID 3
NOTICE OF REMOVAL Page 4

4853-9915-0374

the suit under the expedited actions process. TEX. R. CIV. P. 169(a)(1). However, Plaintiff chose 

to bring suit under a Level III Discovery Control Plan pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 

190.3 (Pl. Orig. Pet., Sec. 1.1). Plaintiff has not affirmatively plead damages of $100,000.00 or 

less in this action. Defendant asserts 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. (Pl. Orig. Pet., Sec. 2.1). Defendant 

asserts that the amount in controversy in this case is in excess of $250,000.00.

IV.

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

10. Removal of this action is proper under section 1441 of the United States Code, since

it is a civil action brought in a state court, and the federal district courts have original jurisdiction 

over the subject matter under section 1332 of the United States Code because Plaintiff and 

Defendants are diverse in citizenship. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1332.

11. By virtue of filing this Notice of Removal, the Removing Defendant does not waive 

its right to assert any motions to transfer venue or dismiss, including Rule 12 motions, permitted 

by the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure.

12. 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, Plaintiff’s Original 

Petition, and all documents served on Defendant.

13. Pursuant to section 1446(b) of the United States Code, written notice of filing of 

this Notice will be given to all adverse parties promptly after the filing of this Notice. 28 U.S.C. 

§1446(d).

14. Pursuant to section 1446(b) of the United States Code, a true and correct copy of 

this Notice will be filed with the District Clerk for the 95th Judicial District Court in Dallas County, 

Case 3:22-cv-01445-E Document 1 Filed 07/05/22 Page 4 of 6 PageID 4
NOTICE OF REMOVAL Page 5

4853-9915-0374

Texas promptly after the filing of this Notice.

V.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendant pursuant to these statutes and in conformance with the 

requirements set forth in section 1446 of the United States Code, removes this action for trial from 

the 95th Judicial District Court in Dallas County, Texas to this Court, on this the 5th day of July, 

2022. 

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ William M. Toles

WILLIAM M. TOLES 

State Bar No. 00798550

PETER C. HOGUE 

State Bar No. 24096933

MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, PC

500 N. Akard Street, Suite 3800

Dallas, Texas 75201

Telephone: (214) 855-7500

Facsimile: (214) 855-7584

wtoles@munsch.com

phogue@munsch.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

IRVING CLUB ACQUISITION CORP., D/B/A

LAS COLINAS COUNTRY CLUB 

Case 3:22-cv-01445-E Document 1 Filed 07/05/22 Page 5 of 6 PageID 5
NOTICE OF REMOVAL Page 6

4853-9915-0374

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on the 5th day of July, 2022, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing document was forwarded via e-service through the ECF system to counsel for Plaintiff: 

Todd Clement

Ragan N. Speer

Clement + Speer

17855 Dallas Parkway, Suite 155

Dallas, Texas 75287

todd@clementspeer.com

ragan@clementspeer.com

/s/ William M. Toles

WILLIAM M. TOLES 

Case 3:22-cv-01445-E Document 1 Filed 07/05/22 Page 6 of 6 PageID 6