Stinson v. Twin Pines Coal Company, Inc., et al.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that Mr. Stinson's action against Twin Pines is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and that Twin Pines's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (Doc. # 32 ) is DENIED as moot. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 9/30/14. (scn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CHARLES BYRON STINSON,
on behalf of himself and a class of
others similarly situated,
TWIN PINES COAL CO., INC., and
THE AMERICAN COAL
CASE NO. 1:14-CV-334-WKW
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In this diversity, putative-class action, Plaintiff Charles Byron Stinson has
sued Twin Pines Coal Company, Inc. (“Twin Pines”) for breach of contract.
Before the court is Defendant Twin Pines’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the
Alternative, to Transfer Count I to Arbitration. (Doc. # 32.) As grounds for its
motion, Twin Pines contends that Mr. Stinson cannot recover on behalf of himself
or a putative class because he is neither a party to that contract nor an intended
third-party beneficiary. (Doc. # 33.) Mr. Stinson opposes the motion. (Doc.
Based upon careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant
law, and for the reasons set out in the earlier-filed Memorandum Opinion and
Order (Doc. # 35) granting a similar motion filed by The American Coal Co., the
court finds that Mr. Stinson does not have standing to sue Twin Pines for breach of
contract because he lacks a legally protected interest in that contract. Because the
court does not have the power to entertain this action, dismissal is required under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).1 In light of the Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal,
Twin Pines’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion is due to be denied as moot.
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Subject-matter jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and the
Class Action Fairness Act, codified in part at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d) and 1453.
Personal jurisdiction and venue are not contested.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
challenges the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. McElmurray v. Consol. Gov’t of
Augusta-Richmond Cnty., 501 F.3d 1244, 1251 (11th Cir. 2007).
On a Rule
12(b)(1) facial attack, the court evaluates whether the plaintiff “has sufficiently
alleged a basis of subject matter jurisdiction” in the complaint and employs
standards similar to those governing Rule 12(b)(6) review. Houston v. Marod
Supermarkets, Inc., 733 F.3d 1323, 1335 (11th Cir. 2013).
Although Twin Pines urges dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), the arguments for and
against dismissal are closely akin to the standing inquiry, and, thus, the arguments are helpful to
the Rule 12(b)(1) analysis.
When evaluating a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), the court must take the facts alleged in the complaint as true
and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Resnick v. AvMed,
Inc., 693 F.3d 1317, 1321–22 (11th Cir. 2012). To survive Rule 12(b)(6) scrutiny,
“a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “[F]acial
plausibility” exists “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court
to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The Rule 12(b)(1) analysis here
takes the form of a facial challenge.
That challenge properly includes
consideration of the contract at issue, which is appended to Twin Pines’s motion to
dismiss. (Exs. A & B to Doc. # 33 (“Agreement”).)
The facts essential to resolution of the motion to dismiss, construed in Mr.
Stinson’s favor, are as follows.
Beginning in September 2008, Mr. Stinson
received high electric bills for properties he owns in Southeast Alabama. Mr.
Stinson blames the increased costs on rate hikes he says resulted from the failure of
coal suppliers, including Twin Pines, to abide by their contracts for coal deliveries
to PowerSouth Energy Cooperative (“PowerSouth”) for electric power generation.
PowerSouth is a “non-profit power generation and transmission cooperative”
that sells wholesale power to its member retail electric distribution cooperatives.
(Am. Compl. ¶ 3.)
Hence, “PowerSouth generates power[,] and its member
cooperatives distribute that power.”
(Am. Compl. ¶ 5.)
Cooperative, Inc. (“CEC”), and South Alabama Electric Cooperative (“SAEC”), as
member cooperatives, purchase electricity from PowerSouth. (Am. Compl. ¶ 9.)
CEC and SAEC are “non-profit member-owned[,] retail electric distribution
cooperatives” that serve rural communities in south Alabama, including the
communities (Enterprise and Glenwood) where Mr. Stinson owns three parcels of
property. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 4.) Mr. Stinson purchases power from CEC and
SAEC to service these properties and, thus, is a member of both CEC and SAEC.
Mr. Stinson alleges that, at some point between January 2008 and July 30,
2008, Twin Pines breached a coal-supply agreement between it and PowerSouth by
failing to supply coal to PowerSouth in accordance with the Agreement’s terms.
(Am. Compl. ¶¶ 7–8.)
Twin Pines’s breach of the Agreement “resulted in PowerSouth paying a
higher price to other suppliers of coal in order to keep its power plant in
production.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 9.) PowerSouth passed those increased costs to its
retail electric distribution cooperatives, including CEC and SAEC, which in turn
passed the costs to their own members, including Mr. Stinson, in the form of a 30percent rate increase, beginning in approximately September 2008.
On April 30, 2013, Mr. Stinson filed this action in the Circuit Court of
Coffee County, Alabama, against four fictitious Defendants, described as “those
persons or entities who or which failed or refused to provide coal in accordance
with their contracts with PowerSouth . . . .” (Compl. ¶ 7.) On April 7, 2014, while
this action was pending in state court, Mr. Stinson amended his Complaint to
substitute AMCOAL and Twin Pines for “Fictitious Defendant A” and “Fictitious
Defendant B.” In the Amended Complaint, Mr. Stinson asserts claims for breach
of contract against AMCOAL and Twin Pines on behalf of himself and “[a]ll
individual persons in the State of Alabama who were members of cooperatives that
were members of PowerSouth and who paid those cooperatives for power from
July 30, 2008 to present.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 14.) Mr. Stinson contends that he and
the putative class “were the intended and direct third party beneficiaries” of the
Agreement and incurred damages as a result of AMCOAL’s and Twin Pines’s
breaches. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 6, 10.) On May 7, 2014, AMCOAL removed this
action to federal court as one arising under the court’s original diversity
jurisdiction under CAFA and 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Post-removal, Twin Pines, who
was served in August 2014, responded to the Amended Complaint with the
pending Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. In support of its motion to dismiss, Twin
Pines has submitted the Agreement and its subsequent amendment. Mr. Stinson
opposes the motion to dismiss.
Twin Pines filed its motion to dismiss and adopted the arguments raised in
its co-defendant AMCOAL’s motion to dismiss. (See Doc. # 33 (“Twin Pines
joins in and asserts the same grounds as those set forth by [AMCOAL] in its
Motion to Dismiss.”).) Subsequently, in a Memorandum Opinion and Order (Doc.
# 35), AMCOAL’s motion to dismiss was granted under Rule 12(b)(1) on grounds
that Mr. Stinson was not a third-party beneficiary to the coal-supply agreement
between AMCOAL and PowerSouth and that, therefore, Mr. Stinson lacked
standing to bring a breach-of-contract claim against AMCOAL under Article III of
the U.S. Constitution and state law. See Mid-Hudson Catskill Rural Migrant
Ministry, Inc. v. Fine Host Corp., 418 F.3d 168, 173 (2d Cir. 2005) (“Where . . .
jurisdiction is predicated on diversity of citizenship, a plaintiff must have standing
under both Article III of the Constitution and applicable state law in order to
maintain a cause of action.”); see also Avenue CLO Fund Ltd. v. Bank of Am., NA,
709 F.3d 1072, 1077 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing Mid-Hudson for the aforementioned
principle). In his response to Twin Pines’s motion to dismiss, Mr. Stinson has
acknowledged that the standing issue argued by Twin Pines “is substantially
similar to the standing issue presented by AMCOAL’s Motion to Dismiss” and that
his arguments were rejected. (Doc. # 40, at 2.) Mr. Stinson has not presented a
persuasive reason for reaching a different result with respect to Twin Pines’s
motion to dismiss. (See Doc. # 40, at 3 (“Plaintiff respectfully requests that the
Court reconsider its position.”).) After careful consideration of the arguments and
the Agreement between Twin Pines and PowerSouth, which properly is part of the
Rule 12(b)(1) analysis (Doc. # 35, at 6–9), the court concludes that, for the same
reasons articulated in its prior opinion, Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal is required.
To summarize the court’s findings, the Agreement governs PowerSouth’s
purchase of coal from Twin Pines. It is, as the title designates, a “Coal Supply
Agreement.” The Agreement sets out the terms for the sale and shipment of coal
and specifies the requirements in terms of the quantity, quality, and price of the
coal. There is no provision in the Agreement that refers to a third party whom
PowerSouth and Twin Pines intended to benefit directly from PowerSouth’s
acquisition of coal. In fact, the Agreement mentions neither PowerSouth’s powergeneration operations nor its relationship with its retail electric distribution
cooperatives nor the ultimate consumers of the electricity.
There was the potential, of course, that a breach of the Agreement by Twin
Pines would force PowerSouth to have to pay a higher price for its coal from
another supplier and that down the line – after PowerSouth used the coal to carry
out its power-generation operations and provided that power to its member retail
electric distribution cooperatives – the breach could result in increased electricity
bills for consumers. But this potentially adverse economic effect on the end user is
too far downstream to infer from this Agreement that Twin Pines and PowerSouth
entered into a coal-supply agreement with the intention that Mr. Stinson and other
electricity consumers benefit directly from that Agreement. The Agreement is
plain – through its omission of any reference to third parties, much less to
electricity consumers – that it was not formed for the direct benefit of Mr. Stinson.
Rather, the Agreement was for the sale of coal, and PowerSouth received the
direct benefit by the purchase of this natural resource, as the coal allowed
PowerSouth to carry out its power-generation operations. The benefit to Mr.
Stinson did not accrue until after PowerSouth used the coal to generate electric
power and sold that power to its member retail electric distribution cooperatives,
which then re-sold the power to Mr. Stinson. In other words, before Mr. Stinson
could benefit from the Agreement, the natural resource PowerSouth purchased
from Twin Pines had to be converted into electricity and then sold twice, first to
CEC and SAEC, and then finally to Mr. Stinson. At best, Mr. Stinson was a
remote, indirect user of a twice-sold, converted natural resource. He and his
proposed class of Plaintiffs, therefore, are “only incidental beneficiaries who claim
the loss of an economic benefit based upon the alleged failure of a promised
performance by a party contractually bound to another.” Zeigler v. Blount Bros.
Constr. Co., 364 So. 2d 1163, 1166 (Ala. 1978). Based upon the plain and
unambiguous terms of the Agreement, Mr. Stinson and his proposed class of
Plaintiffs are not third-party beneficiaries to the Agreement and do not have a
legally protected interest in the Agreement.
Mr. Stinson lacks standing to bring a breach-of-contract action against Twin
Pines – in an individual or representative capacity – under both Article III of the
U.S. Constitution and state law. Accordingly, Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal is required.2
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Mr. Stinson’s action against
Twin Pines is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction and that Twin Pines’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss
(Doc. # 32) is DENIED as moot.
An appropriate judgment will be entered.
DONE this 30th day of September, 2014.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Even if it is assumed that Mr. Stinson has standing, the Amended Complaint would be
subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?