Preview
FILED
4/4/2023 11:33 AM
Case 3:23-cv-00683-L-BH Document 5 Filed 04/04/23 Page 1 of? PageID 165 DI§TE$:§'TACPL'E§E
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Loaidi Grove DEPUTY
In The United States District Court
For The Northern District of Texas
Dallas Division
TERRENCE GORE,
Plaintiff,
V.
LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTION INC.
Defendant
Case No. 3:23-cv-00683-L-BH
PLAIN TIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND BACK TO STATE COURT
Plaintiff, TERRENCE GORE, Plaintiff, TERRENCE GORE, hereby requests the
federal court to remand this case back to the Texas state district court from which it was
removed from by Defendant LexisNeXis Risk Solutions Inc. (“LexisNexis”) under Notice of
Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), and in support thereof would respectfully show
the Court as follows:
l. The Notice of Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) does not adhere to the
requirements under said Code, specifically:
(2) If removal of a civil action is sought on the basis of the jurisdiction conferred by section
1332(a), the sum demanded in good faith in the initial pleading shall be deemed to be the
amount in controversy, except that—
(A) the notice of removal may assert the amount in controversy if the initial pleading
seeks—
(i) nonmonetary relief; or
(ii) a money judgment, but the State practice either does not permit demand for
a specific sum or permits recovery of damages in excess of the amount
demanded; and
(B) removal of the action is proper on the basis of an amount in controversy asserted
under subparagraph (A) if the district court finds, by the preponderance of the
Case 3:23-cv-00683-L-BH Document 5 Filed 04/04/23 Page 2 of 7 PageID 166
evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the amount specified in section
1332(a).
Plaintiff contends that the US District Court does not have subject-matter
jurisdiction in matter. As such, jurisdiction cannot be implied or inferred nor waived
especially by the Defendant, Lexis Nexis. On March 13, 2023, Defendant, LexisNexis
was served summon and original petition for cause of action under Texas statutes,
TEX. BUS & COM § 20.08, Consumer's Right to File Action in Court or Arbitrate
Disputes, and TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 37.003 & 37.004. The
summon specifically gave a deadline to file a written answer to the complaint by April
3, 2023. No answer was filed by defendant.
On March 31, 2023, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal under 28 U.S.C.
§1441, et seq. Defendant’s civil cover sheet states this Court has jurisdiction on the
basis of federal questionl gave rise of original jurisdiction to the federal court
prompting the Notice of Removal. LexisNexis notice of removal on the other hand,
states Section 1332, diversity of citizenship. It has been settled that the removal statute
itself doesn’t create jurisdiction? The defendant's right to remove is to be determined
according to the plaintiffs' pleading at the time of the petition for removal, and it is the
defendant's burden to show the existence of federal jurisdiction.3
Plaintiff filed his pleadings with the state court on March 6, 2023. In the
pleading, Plaintiff uncontrovertibly pleaded the following:
DAMAGES
As a result of the above Violations pursuant to Texas Business and Commerce Code
Section 20 et seq, and Texas Business & Commerce Code Chapter 17 et seq. Plaintzfi" is entitled
to recovery actual damages and greater of three times actual damage, together with reasonable
attorneys’ fees if any, and court costs. WHEREFORE, Plaintifi respecfiully prays that
judgment be entered against Defendant for damages of $70, 000. 00 and reasonable and
1
Document 1-1, Page 1 of 2 PageID6
2
Lontz V. Tharp, 413 F.3d 435, 444 (4th Cir. 2005)
3
Abels v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 770 F.2d 26, 29 (3d Cir. Pa. 1985)
Case 3:23-cv-00683-L-BH Document 5 Filed 04/04/23 Page 3 of 7 PageID 167
customary attorney ’s fees ifapplicable, cost ofcourt, andfbr such other andfurther reliefas
justice may require.4
Nowhere in the pleadings are any references or states a claim under federal question;
"subject - matter jurisdiction is to be on the basis of the record in the state court, at the
time the petition for removal is presented.” Thus, LexisNeXis attempts to infer jurisdiction
were none exist for this court.
The requirements of the removal statute are jurisdictional: Beard v. Lehman Bros. Holdings, Ina,
458 F Supp. 2d I314, I317 MD. Ala. 2006) (“[a] court must strictly construe the requirements
of the removal statute, as removal constitutes an infringement on state sovereignty.")6
B. GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL 3. The present suit is an action over which this Court has original
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § I331, as it is a civil action founded on a claim or right arising under
the laws ofthe United States, and may be removed to this Court by Defendants pursuant to the provisions
of28 U.S.C. § 1446(1)). Removal is proper because Plaintifl’s claims present a federal question. See 28
U.S.C'. §§ 1331 and 1441 (a). In the Petition, Plaintiflseeks damages fir Defendants’ alleged violations
ofthe FCRA. Moreover, Plaintifl’s claims based on state and common law may be adjudicated by this
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C'. §§ I367 and I441(c).
LexisNexis proffers a conciliatory gesture by stating this court can adjudicate
Plaintiff’s state claims, there are nothing but claims under Texas statutes in Plaintiff’s
petition. A Federal Defense Does Not Sufiice to Create a Federal Question for Removal . The
Supreme Court has held that merely asserting a defense that injects a federal question, such
as preemption, does not transform what is plainly, a state law claim, such as negligence
and/ or malpractice, into an action arising under federal law for purposes of removal
jurisdiction.
“The presence of a federal question . . . in a defensive argument does not overcome
the paramount policies embodied in the well-pleaded complaint rule --
that the plaintiff is the
master of the complaint, that a federal question must appear on the face of the complaint, and
4
DOCUMENT 1-1, PAGEID 17; DOCUMENT 4, PAGEID 63
5
Westmoreland Hosp. Ass'n, 605 F.2d 119, 124 (3d Cir. 1979).
6
Beard v. Lehman Bros. Holdings, Inc., 458 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 1317 (M.D. Ala. 2006)
Case 3:23-cv-00683-L-BH Document 5 Filed 04/04/23 Page 4 of 7 PageID 168
that the plaintiff may, by eschewing claims based on federal law, choose to have the cause
heard in state court. When a plaintiff invokes a right . . . the plaintiff has chosen to plead
What we have held must be regarded as a federal claim, and removal is at the defendant's
option. But a defendant cannot, merely by injecting a federal question into an action that
asserts what is plainly a state-law claim, transform the action into one arising under federal
law, thereby selecting the forum in which the claim shall be litigated. If a defendant could
do so, the plaintiff would be master of nothing. Congress has long since decided that federal
defenses do not provide a basis for removal.”
Federal Courts have an ever-present obligation to satisfy themselves of their subject matter
8
jurisdiction and to decide the issue sua sponte (Without any initiation by the Plaintiffs)
Plaintiff’s pleading in state court were designed to utilize Texas statutes of consumer
protection. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued an interpretive rule affirming
states’ abilities to issue their own fair credit reporting laws. The CFPB said:
o States have the flexibility to preserve fair and competitive credit reporting markets by
enacting state-level laws that are stricter than the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.
o State laws are not preempted unless they conflict with the Fair Credit Reporting Act
or fall within narrow preemption categories enumerated within the statute.
TEX. BUS & COM Title 2, Chapter 20, Regulation of Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies
was enacted January l, 2014. There are no federal preempting or nullification of the state’s
fair credit reporting requirements and protections even if they are more stringent than those
of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. Plaintiff specifically pleaded to assert his rights
under state law. Trans Union’s beliefs cannot convey federal jurisdiction.
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP
With Regards to 28 U.S. Code § 1332 Diversity of Citizenship. LexisNexis contents that
Plaintiff’s pleading on its face exceed the $70,000 threshold. Plaintiff intentional pleaded as
to not evoke federal jurisdiction. Defendant has removed this case because of its perceived
advantage over pro se in this forum. Lack of pleading damages in excess of $75,000 there is
Caterpillar v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987)
7
SLiberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ward Trucking Corp., 48 F.3d 742, 750 (3d. Cir. 1995).
Case 3:23-cv-00683-L-BH Document 5 Filed 04/04/23 Page 5 of 7 PageID 169
no diversity of citizenship. Defendant goes as far as to argue innuendos that Plaintiff will
have attorney fees and punitive damages that would exceed the federal jurisdictional limits.
“
Plaintiff, who is Pro se, has clearly stated Plaintifiris entitled to recovery actual damages and
greater of three times actual damage, together with reasonable attorneys’ fees if any, and court costs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintifi respectfully prays that judgment be entered against Defendant for
damages of $70, 000. 00 and reasonable and customary attorney’s fees if applicable, cost of court,
andfor such other andfurther reliefasjustice may require. "9 There cannot be any inference that
Plaintiff is seeking more than $75,000. It is settled that pro se litigants are not entitled to
attorney fees, Plaintiff need not go into details regarding this; court cost are not factored into
the jurisdiction monetary claim limitation.
Defendant has pleaded preponderance of the evidence burden of proof to the removing
Plaintiff to federal jurisdiction. This is a very strict standard of proof, as it does require
inference as to What may happen beyond Plaintiff‘s pleading to total amount in controversy.
The district courts have held that a conservative calculation where the total amount in
controversy is uncertain and where other financial factors are to be considered. Plaintiff has
however, repeated the total amount in controversy in the ‘Prayer for Relief’ clearly states
with no ambiguities a judgement of $70,000 and reasonable attorney fees if applicable, cost
of court, and for such other relief as justice may require. Plaintiff has appeared before the
state court and now before the federal court, pro se. Attorney fees Will not be applicable in
this matter. Plaintiff, appearing pro se before this federal court recently argued against the
removal of a recent case involving CRA, Trans Union, having successfully moved the district
1°
court to remand back to the state court.
Defendant, LexisNexis has the burden to prove that this court has jurisdiction.
Applicable Law in this matter, “The burden of proving federal jurisdiction lies with the
removing party, and the federal court must assume a removed case is outside the court’s
limited jurisdiction.” Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001). “When
a motion to remand is filed, the removing party has the burden of establishing federal
9
DOCUMENT 1-1, PAGEID 17; DOCUMENT 4, PAGEID 63
1°
NDTX Case No. 3:23-cv-00003 Gore vs. Trans Union & Equifax
Case 3:23-cv-00683-L-BH Document 5 Filed 04/04/23 Page 6 of 7 PageID 170
jurisdiction and showing the removal was appropriate.” Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas.
Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002).
LexisNexis has inappropriately removed this case from the state jurisdiction. This
removal is frivolous and a systematic behavior of corporate intimidation by dragging a pro
se litigation into a more complex legal area. This Court has already given notice of deficiency
to Defendant as t0 its removal is improper and not in compliance with statutory provisions
for removal.
Plaintiff demands that LexisNeXis shows this court beyond reason and simple belief
that there exists a federal question in Plaintiffs original petition, and it complied with all
statutory requirement for removal.
SAN CTIONS
Defendant, LexisNexis has frivolous and without cause removed this case from state
court. Plaintiff, has expend time and effort in researching, drafting and filing this motion to
remand. As Plaintiff, non-attorney pro se, is not entitled to attorney fees. In the interest of
justice and equitability, Plaintiff seeks sanctions against LexisNexis t0 discourage such
frivolous act and waste of judicial resource in the future.
Plaintiff requests that he be made whole upon remand. Plaintiff requests that the Court
remand this case back to state court preserving the status quo by return all parties back to the
legal state or position it was in prior to removal. Therefore, Plaintiff requests this case be
remanded back to the state as quickly as possible.
Respectfully submitted,
DMZ/.Q‘
Terrence Gore pro se
Case 3:23-cv-00683-L-BH Document 5 Filed 04/08/23 Page I of I PageID 164
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
TERRENCE M. GORE, )
Plaintiff, )
vs. ) No. 3:23-CV-683-L-BH
)
LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC., )
Defendant. ) Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge‘
NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY AND ORDER
The defendants’ Notice ofRemoval, filed March 31, 2023 (doc. 1), does not comply with
the required form of documents to be filed upon removal set out in Local Civil Rule 81 .1.a. of
the Local Rules for the Northern District of Texas. It does not contain a supplemental civil cover
sheet, an index of documents, a copy of the docket sheet in the state court action, or a certificate
on interested persons. The defendant must file an amended notice of removal that complies with
the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446 and Local Civil Rule 81.1 within seven (7) calendar davs
from the date 0f this order.
SO ORDERED this 3rd day of April, 2023.
RMA CARRILLO RAM
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE GE
By Special Order No. 3-251, this pro se case has been automatically referred for full case management.
1
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Envelope lD: 74310999
Filing Code Description: Motion - Miscellanous
Filing Description: Motion to Remand Back to State Court
Status as of 4/4/2023 2:09 PM CST
Associated Case Party: TERRENCE GORE
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Terrence M.Gore tmgore972@gmail.com 4/4/2023 11:33:00 AM SENT
Associated Case Party: LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC.
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Jacob MichaelBach jbach@mamlaw.com 4/4/2023 11:33:00 AM SENT
Xerxes Martin xmartin@mamlaw.com 4/4/2023 11:33:00 AM SENT
ECF FILINGS ecf@mamlaw.com 4/4/2023 11:33:00 AM SENT
Tiffany SWallace twallace@mamlaw.com 4/4/2023 11:33:00 AM SENT
Preview
FILED 4/4/2023 11:33 AM Case 3:23-cv-00683-L-BH Document 5 Filed 04/04/23 Page 1 of? PageID 165 DI§TE$:§'TACPL'E§E DALLAS CO., TEXAS Loaidi Grove DEPUTY In The United States District Court For The Northern District of Texas Dallas Division TERRENCE GORE, Plaintiff, V. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTION INC. Defendant Case No. 3:23-cv-00683-L-BH PLAIN TIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND BACK TO STATE COURT Plaintiff, TERRENCE GORE, Plaintiff, TERRENCE GORE, hereby requests the federal court to remand this case back to the Texas state district court from which it was removed from by Defendant LexisNeXis Risk Solutions Inc. (“LexisNexis”) under Notice of Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), and in support thereof would respectfully show the Court as follows: l. The Notice of Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) does not adhere to the requirements under said Code, specifically: (2) If removal of a civil action is sought on the basis of the jurisdiction conferred by section 1332(a), the sum demanded in good faith in the initial pleading shall be deemed to be the amount in controversy, except that— (A) the notice of removal may assert the amount in controversy if the initial pleading seeks— (i) nonmonetary relief; or (ii) a money judgment, but the State practice either does not permit demand for a specific sum or permits recovery of damages in excess of the amount demanded; and (B) removal of the action is proper on the basis of an amount in controversy asserted under subparagraph (A) if the district court finds, by the preponderance of the Case 3:23-cv-00683-L-BH Document 5 Filed 04/04/23 Page 2 of 7 PageID 166 evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the amount specified in section 1332(a). Plaintiff contends that the US District Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction in matter. As such, jurisdiction cannot be implied or inferred nor waived especially by the Defendant, Lexis Nexis. On March 13, 2023, Defendant, LexisNexis was served summon and original petition for cause of action under Texas statutes, TEX. BUS & COM § 20.08, Consumer's Right to File Action in Court or Arbitrate Disputes, and TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 37.003 & 37.004. The summon specifically gave a deadline to file a written answer to the complaint by April 3, 2023. No answer was filed by defendant. On March 31, 2023, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal under 28 U.S.C. §1441, et seq. Defendant’s civil cover sheet states this Court has jurisdiction on the basis of federal questionl gave rise of original jurisdiction to the federal court prompting the Notice of Removal. LexisNexis notice of removal on the other hand, states Section 1332, diversity of citizenship. It has been settled that the removal statute itself doesn’t create jurisdiction? The defendant's right to remove is to be determined according to the plaintiffs' pleading at the time of the petition for removal, and it is the defendant's burden to show the existence of federal jurisdiction.3 Plaintiff filed his pleadings with the state court on March 6, 2023. In the pleading, Plaintiff uncontrovertibly pleaded the following: DAMAGES As a result of the above Violations pursuant to Texas Business and Commerce Code Section 20 et seq, and Texas Business & Commerce Code Chapter 17 et seq. Plaintzfi" is entitled to recovery actual damages and greater of three times actual damage, together with reasonable attorneys’ fees if any, and court costs. WHEREFORE, Plaintifi respecfiully prays that judgment be entered against Defendant for damages of $70, 000. 00 and reasonable and 1 Document 1-1, Page 1 of 2 PageID6 2 Lontz V. Tharp, 413 F.3d 435, 444 (4th Cir. 2005) 3 Abels v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 770 F.2d 26, 29 (3d Cir. Pa. 1985) Case 3:23-cv-00683-L-BH Document 5 Filed 04/04/23 Page 3 of 7 PageID 167 customary attorney ’s fees ifapplicable, cost ofcourt, andfbr such other andfurther reliefas justice may require.4 Nowhere in the pleadings are any references or states a claim under federal question; "subject - matter jurisdiction is to be on the basis of the record in the state court, at the time the petition for removal is presented.” Thus, LexisNeXis attempts to infer jurisdiction were none exist for this court. The requirements of the removal statute are jurisdictional: Beard v. Lehman Bros. Holdings, Ina, 458 F Supp. 2d I314, I317 MD. Ala. 2006) (“[a] court must strictly construe the requirements of the removal statute, as removal constitutes an infringement on state sovereignty.")6 B. GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL 3. The present suit is an action over which this Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § I331, as it is a civil action founded on a claim or right arising under the laws ofthe United States, and may be removed to this Court by Defendants pursuant to the provisions of28 U.S.C. § 1446(1)). Removal is proper because Plaintifl’s claims present a federal question. See 28 U.S.C'. §§ 1331 and 1441 (a). In the Petition, Plaintiflseeks damages fir Defendants’ alleged violations ofthe FCRA. Moreover, Plaintifl’s claims based on state and common law may be adjudicated by this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C'. §§ I367 and I441(c). LexisNexis proffers a conciliatory gesture by stating this court can adjudicate Plaintiff’s state claims, there are nothing but claims under Texas statutes in Plaintiff’s petition. A Federal Defense Does Not Sufiice to Create a Federal Question for Removal . The Supreme Court has held that merely asserting a defense that injects a federal question, such as preemption, does not transform what is plainly, a state law claim, such as negligence and/ or malpractice, into an action arising under federal law for purposes of removal jurisdiction. “The presence of a federal question . . . in a defensive argument does not overcome the paramount policies embodied in the well-pleaded complaint rule -- that the plaintiff is the master of the complaint, that a federal question must appear on the face of the complaint, and 4 DOCUMENT 1-1, PAGEID 17; DOCUMENT 4, PAGEID 63 5 Westmoreland Hosp. Ass'n, 605 F.2d 119, 124 (3d Cir. 1979). 6 Beard v. Lehman Bros. Holdings, Inc., 458 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 1317 (M.D. Ala. 2006) Case 3:23-cv-00683-L-BH Document 5 Filed 04/04/23 Page 4 of 7 PageID 168 that the plaintiff may, by eschewing claims based on federal law, choose to have the cause heard in state court. When a plaintiff invokes a right . . . the plaintiff has chosen to plead What we have held must be regarded as a federal claim, and removal is at the defendant's option. But a defendant cannot, merely by injecting a federal question into an action that asserts what is plainly a state-law claim, transform the action into one arising under federal law, thereby selecting the forum in which the claim shall be litigated. If a defendant could do so, the plaintiff would be master of nothing. Congress has long since decided that federal defenses do not provide a basis for removal.” Federal Courts have an ever-present obligation to satisfy themselves of their subject matter 8 jurisdiction and to decide the issue sua sponte (Without any initiation by the Plaintiffs) Plaintiff’s pleading in state court were designed to utilize Texas statutes of consumer protection. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued an interpretive rule affirming states’ abilities to issue their own fair credit reporting laws. The CFPB said: o States have the flexibility to preserve fair and competitive credit reporting markets by enacting state-level laws that are stricter than the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. o State laws are not preempted unless they conflict with the Fair Credit Reporting Act or fall within narrow preemption categories enumerated within the statute. TEX. BUS & COM Title 2, Chapter 20, Regulation of Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies was enacted January l, 2014. There are no federal preempting or nullification of the state’s fair credit reporting requirements and protections even if they are more stringent than those of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. Plaintiff specifically pleaded to assert his rights under state law. Trans Union’s beliefs cannot convey federal jurisdiction. DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP With Regards to 28 U.S. Code § 1332 Diversity of Citizenship. LexisNexis contents that Plaintiff’s pleading on its face exceed the $70,000 threshold. Plaintiff intentional pleaded as to not evoke federal jurisdiction. Defendant has removed this case because of its perceived advantage over pro se in this forum. Lack of pleading damages in excess of $75,000 there is Caterpillar v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) 7 SLiberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ward Trucking Corp., 48 F.3d 742, 750 (3d. Cir. 1995). Case 3:23-cv-00683-L-BH Document 5 Filed 04/04/23 Page 5 of 7 PageID 169 no diversity of citizenship. Defendant goes as far as to argue innuendos that Plaintiff will have attorney fees and punitive damages that would exceed the federal jurisdictional limits. “ Plaintiff, who is Pro se, has clearly stated Plaintifiris entitled to recovery actual damages and greater of three times actual damage, together with reasonable attorneys’ fees if any, and court costs. WHEREFORE, Plaintifi respectfully prays that judgment be entered against Defendant for damages of $70, 000. 00 and reasonable and customary attorney’s fees if applicable, cost of court, andfor such other andfurther reliefasjustice may require. "9 There cannot be any inference that Plaintiff is seeking more than $75,000. It is settled that pro se litigants are not entitled to attorney fees, Plaintiff need not go into details regarding this; court cost are not factored into the jurisdiction monetary claim limitation. Defendant has pleaded preponderance of the evidence burden of proof to the removing Plaintiff to federal jurisdiction. This is a very strict standard of proof, as it does require inference as to What may happen beyond Plaintiff‘s pleading to total amount in controversy. The district courts have held that a conservative calculation where the total amount in controversy is uncertain and where other financial factors are to be considered. Plaintiff has however, repeated the total amount in controversy in the ‘Prayer for Relief’ clearly states with no ambiguities a judgement of $70,000 and reasonable attorney fees if applicable, cost of court, and for such other relief as justice may require. Plaintiff has appeared before the state court and now before the federal court, pro se. Attorney fees Will not be applicable in this matter. Plaintiff, appearing pro se before this federal court recently argued against the removal of a recent case involving CRA, Trans Union, having successfully moved the district 1° court to remand back to the state court. Defendant, LexisNexis has the burden to prove that this court has jurisdiction. Applicable Law in this matter, “The burden of proving federal jurisdiction lies with the removing party, and the federal court must assume a removed case is outside the court’s limited jurisdiction.” Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001). “When a motion to remand is filed, the removing party has the burden of establishing federal 9 DOCUMENT 1-1, PAGEID 17; DOCUMENT 4, PAGEID 63 1° NDTX Case No. 3:23-cv-00003 Gore vs. Trans Union & Equifax Case 3:23-cv-00683-L-BH Document 5 Filed 04/04/23 Page 6 of 7 PageID 170 jurisdiction and showing the removal was appropriate.” Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002). LexisNexis has inappropriately removed this case from the state jurisdiction. This removal is frivolous and a systematic behavior of corporate intimidation by dragging a pro se litigation into a more complex legal area. This Court has already given notice of deficiency to Defendant as t0 its removal is improper and not in compliance with statutory provisions for removal. Plaintiff demands that LexisNeXis shows this court beyond reason and simple belief that there exists a federal question in Plaintiffs original petition, and it complied with all statutory requirement for removal. SAN CTIONS Defendant, LexisNexis has frivolous and without cause removed this case from state court. Plaintiff, has expend time and effort in researching, drafting and filing this motion to remand. As Plaintiff, non-attorney pro se, is not entitled to attorney fees. In the interest of justice and equitability, Plaintiff seeks sanctions against LexisNexis t0 discourage such frivolous act and waste of judicial resource in the future. Plaintiff requests that he be made whole upon remand. Plaintiff requests that the Court remand this case back to state court preserving the status quo by return all parties back to the legal state or position it was in prior to removal. Therefore, Plaintiff requests this case be remanded back to the state as quickly as possible. Respectfully submitted, DMZ/.Q‘ Terrence Gore pro se Case 3:23-cv-00683-L-BH Document 5 Filed 04/08/23 Page I of I PageID 164 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION TERRENCE M. GORE, ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) No. 3:23-CV-683-L-BH ) LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC., ) Defendant. ) Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge‘ NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY AND ORDER The defendants’ Notice ofRemoval, filed March 31, 2023 (doc. 1), does not comply with the required form of documents to be filed upon removal set out in Local Civil Rule 81 .1.a. of the Local Rules for the Northern District of Texas. It does not contain a supplemental civil cover sheet, an index of documents, a copy of the docket sheet in the state court action, or a certificate on interested persons. The defendant must file an amended notice of removal that complies with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446 and Local Civil Rule 81.1 within seven (7) calendar davs from the date 0f this order. SO ORDERED this 3rd day of April, 2023. RMA CARRILLO RAM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE GE By Special Order No. 3-251, this pro se case has been automatically referred for full case management. 1 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Envelope lD: 74310999 Filing Code Description: Motion - Miscellanous Filing Description: Motion to Remand Back to State Court Status as of 4/4/2023 2:09 PM CST Associated Case Party: TERRENCE GORE Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Terrence M.Gore tmgore972@gmail.com 4/4/2023 11:33:00 AM SENT Associated Case Party: LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC. Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Jacob MichaelBach jbach@mamlaw.com 4/4/2023 11:33:00 AM SENT Xerxes Martin xmartin@mamlaw.com 4/4/2023 11:33:00 AM SENT ECF FILINGS ecf@mamlaw.com 4/4/2023 11:33:00 AM SENT Tiffany SWallace twallace@mamlaw.com 4/4/2023 11:33:00 AM SENT