UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARK IDROGO, JR., §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-CV-30

§

CRITICAL, LLC and TAVION §

LADONTE MENARD, §

§

Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pending before the court are the parties’ Agreed Motion to Remand (#6), wherein the

parties agree that this court may lack subject matter jurisdiction, and Plaintiff Mark Idrogo, Jr.’s

(“Idrogo”) Opposed Motion to Remand (#5), in which he contends that complete diversity of

citizenship is lacking. Having considered the motions, the record, and the applicable law, the

court is of the opinion that this case should be remanded. 

Idrogo filed this action on November 7, 2023, in the 58th Judicial District Court of

Jefferson County, Texas. Idrogo’s claims arise from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on

Interstate 10 between his vehicle and a vehicle owned by Defendant Critical, LLC (“Critical”) and

operated by its employee, Defendant Tavion Ladonte Menard (“Menard”). Idrogo’s Original

Petition (#2) named Critical as the only defendant and asserted various negligence claims. 

Idrogo’s Original Petition also clarified that both he and Critical were citizens of Florida. Idrogo

later filed his First Amended Petition (#3), adding Menard as a defendant to the action. Shortly

thereafter, Menard removed the action to this court. Menard’s claimed basis for removal was

diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, and, in the notice, he alleged that complete diversity exists

Case 1:24-cv-00030-MAC Document 7 Filed 03/15/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 70
among the real parties in interest and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00,

exclusive of interest and costs. Nonetheless, in his Notice of Removal (#1), he also agreed that

Idrogo is a citizen of Florida and correctly noted, albeit for the wrong reason, that Critical is also

a citizen of Florida. As for his own citizenship, Menard stated that he is a citizen of Louisiana. 

After Menard removed the action, Idrogo filed an Opposed Motion to Remand, in which he

contends that complete diversity of citizenship is lacking. While Menard did not file a response

to Idrogo’s motion, all parties later filed their Agreed Motion to Remand. The Agreed Motion

to Remand is, however, equivocal, stating: “After further review, the parties agree that this Court

may lack subject matter jurisdiction over this action or that remanding the case to state court would

serve the interests of justice and judicial economy.” 

Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction and are authorized to entertain causes of

action only where a question of federal law is involved or where there is diversity of citizenship

between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and

costs. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332; Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct.

1743, 1746 (2019); Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006). In order to determine

whether jurisdiction is present in a removed action, the claims set forth in the state court petition

are considered as of the date of filing and the date of removal. Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles,

568 U.S. 588, 594 (2013). When considering a motion to remand, “[t]he removing party bears

the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction exists and that removal was proper.” Barker v.

Hercules Offshore Inc., 713 F.3d 208, 212 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Manguno v. Prudential Prop.

& Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002)). Menard’s purported basis for removal,

federal diversity jurisdiction, requires complete diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and

2

Case 1:24-cv-00030-MAC Document 7 Filed 03/15/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 71
all defendants and the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. 

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Because the parties do not dispute the amount in controversy requirement, the only issue

here is complete diversity. As noted above, Idrogo resides in Florida, and, thus, all parties agree

that he is a citizen of Florida. Critical too is a citizen of Florida. “[T]he citizenship of a LLC is

determined by the citizenship of all of its members,” Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d

1077, 1080 (5th Cir. 2008), and Critical’s two members are citizens of Florida. Menard’s notice

of removal concedes that both Idrogo and Critical are citizens of Florida. Because Idrogo and

Critical are both citizens of Florida, and Menard has failed to satisfy his burden of showing the

contrary, complete diversity does not exist. The fact that Menard is a citizen of Louisiana does

not alter this result. As such, because diversity of citizenship is Menard’s purported basis for

removal and complete diversity of citizenship is not present, this court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over the case. 

In sum, an evaluation of the relevant facts and controlling law reveals that this court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction over this action, as there is neither a federal question presented nor

complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. Therefore, this case was improvidently

removed, and remand is warranted. Accordingly, Idrogo’s Opposed Motion to Remand (#5) and

the parties’ Agreed Motion to Remand (#6) are GRANTED.

This case is REMANDED to the 58th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

3

________________________________________

MARCIA A. CRONE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 15th day of March, 2024.

Case 1:24-cv-00030-MAC Document 7 Filed 03/15/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 72