Jeffrey Skeens v. Alpha Natural Resources, Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-cv-20595,5:12-cv-06854 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999437501].. [13-2444]

Appeal: 13-2444

Doc: 38

Filed: 09/17/2014

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2444

JEFFREY C. SKEENS, as Administrator of the Estate of Grover
Skeens; CAROLYN D. DAVIS, as Administratrix of the Estate
of Charles T. Davis; OWEN T. DAVIS, as Administrator of the
Estate of Cory Davis,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
and
GROVER SKEENS; CHARLES T. DAVIS; CORY DAVIS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALPHA NATURAL RESOURCES, INCORPORATED; ALPHA APPALACHIA
HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, f/k/a Massey Energy Company,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley.
Irene C. Berger,
District Judge. (5:13-cv-20595; 5:12-cv-06854)

Submitted:

July 31, 2014

Decided:

September 17, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in
part,
vacated
in
part,
and
instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion.

remanded

with

Appeal: 13-2444

Doc: 38

Filed: 09/17/2014

Pg: 2 of 6

J. Michael Ranson, RANSON LAW
Virginia; G. Patrick Jacobs, JACOBS
Virginia, for Appellants.
A.L.
JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Charleston, West

OFFICES, Charleston, West
LAW OFFICE, Charleston, West
Emch, Gretchen M. Callas,
Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-2444

Doc: 38

Filed: 09/17/2014

Pg: 3 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey C. Skeens, Carolyn D. Davis, and Owen T. Davis
(“Plaintiffs”),

as

administrators

of

the

estates

of

Grover

Skeens, Charles T. Davis, and Cory Davis, respectively, seek to
appeal the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice
their amended complaint against Alpha Natural Resources, Inc.,
and Alpha Appalachia Holdings, Inc., (“Defendants”) in Case No.
5:12-cv-06854
against

and

Defendants

dismissing
in

Case

with
No.

prejudice

their

5:13-cv-20595.

complaint
We

dismiss

Plaintiffs’ appeal of the district court’s order in Case No.
5:12-cv-06854 as interlocutory.

We vacate the district court’s

order in Case No. 5:13-cv-20595 and remand with instructions to
dismiss

the

complaint

without

prejudice

for

lack

of

jurisdiction.
With respect to Case No. 5:12-cv-06854, we note that
we have already once declined to consider Plaintiffs’ appeal of
the district court’s dismissal of their case without prejudice.
See Skeens v. Alpha Natural Res., No. 13-1727 (4th Cir. ECF No.
41).

We discern no differences in the posture of the case that

would require us to disturb our prior decision.

See, e.g.,

Sierra Club v. Khanjee Holding, Inc., 655 F.3d 699, 705 (7th
Cir. 2011) (finding “no significant differences” in the legal
landscape

that

would

jurisdictional ruling).

warrant

re-examination

of

prior

The district court’s dismissal in this
3

Appeal: 13-2444

case

Doc: 38

remains

appeal.

Filed: 09/17/2014

an

Pg: 4 of 6

interlocutory

order

that

is

not

subject

to

See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union

392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, we once

again dismiss the appeal of the district court’s order in Case
No. 5:12-cv-06854.
Turning to Plaintiffs’ appeal of the district court’s
order

in

Case

jurisdiction,

No.
we

5:13-cv-20595,

are

obligated

“[a]s

to

a

court

satisfy

of

ourself

jurisdiction as well as that of the district court.”

limited
of

our

Choice

Hotels Int’l, Inc. v. Shiv Hospitality, L.L.C., 491 F.3d 171,
175 (4th Cir. 2008); see also Wis. Dep’t of Corr. v. Schacht,
524 U.S. 381, 389 (1998).

Federal jurisdiction may lie either

on the basis of diversity, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2012), or the
existence

of

Diversity

a

federal

jurisdiction

citizenship

exists

question,
exists

among

28

when

the

U.S.C.
complete

parties

and

§

1331

(2012).

diversity
the

of

amount

in

controversy is greater than $75,000, exclusive of interest and
costs.

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (stating

that corporation is deemed a citizen of state in which it is
incorporated
business).

and

state

in

which

of

has

principal

place

of

Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving the existence

of subject matter jurisdiction.
Comm’rs

it

Carroll

Cnty.,

Piney Run Pres. Ass’n v. Cnty.

Md.,

2008).
4

523

F.3d

453,

459

(4th

Cir.

Appeal: 13-2444

Doc: 38

We

Filed: 09/17/2014

conclude

that

Pg: 5 of 6

Plaintiffs

failed

to

bear

their

burden of establishing complete diversity: although the amended
complaint

establishes

the

citizenship

of

Plaintiffs,

it

indicates only the states in which Defendants are incorporated,
neglecting

to

include

also

the

states

their principal place of business.
court

should

have

dismissed

where

Defendants

have

Consequently, the district

the

complaint

for

lack

of

jurisdiction.
Moreover,

“[g]iven

the

court’s

lack

of

jurisdiction

over the case, any . . . holdings based on consideration of and
conclusions on the merits were beyond the power of the district
court.”

S.

Walk

at

Broadlands

Homeowner’s

Assoc.,

Inc.

v.

OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 n.4 (4th Cir.
2013).

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order in

Case No. 5:13-cv-20595 and remand with instructions to dismiss
the complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

See

id. at 185 (“A dismissal for . . . [a] defect in subject matter
jurisdiction[] must be one without prejudice, because a court
that lacks jurisdiction has no power to adjudicate and dispose
of a claim on the merits.”).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal

contentions

are

adequately

5

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 13-2444

before

Doc: 38

this

court

Filed: 09/17/2014

and

Pg: 6 of 6

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART, AND
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

6