Bellamy et al v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline, LLC et al
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' 9 MOTION to Remand to State Court is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 9/28/2018.(GLD)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
KELSEY BELLAMY, et al.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
v.
TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE, LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Case No.
5:17-cv-00423-JMH
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
***
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Remand to State Court.
[DE 9].
Defendants have responded [DE 10]
and Plaintiffs replied [DE 11], thus, Plaintiffs’ motion is ripe
for decision.
and
being
Having reviewed the motion, response, and reply,
otherwise
adequately
advised,
the
Court
will
deny
Plaintiffs’ motion for the reasons set forth below.
Background
This case arises from an incident alleged to have occurred on
August 1, 2016.
station
owned
Plaintiffs allege that a natural gas compression
and
operated
by
Tennessee
Gas
Pipeline,
“discharged natural gas condensate and compressor oil.”
Compl. ¶11].
LLC
[DE 1,
Plaintiffs allege the condensate contained “toxic
compounds including, but not limited to, Benzene, Heptane, and
Decane.” [Id. at ¶18]. This discharge allegedly “created a visible
oily film which settled on Plaintiffs’ persons and Plaintiff’s
physical
and
personal
property”
and
caused
“temporary
and
permanent damage to Plaintiff’s physical and personal property as
well as emotional distress and inconvenience.” (Id. at ¶¶15, 17.)
Plaintiffs
also
claim
personal
injuries
resulted
exposure to the condensate and compressor oil.
from
their
[Id. at ¶18].
Plaintiffs’ complaints against the Tennessee Pipeline and Kinder
Morgan defendants include negligence, negligence per se; product
liability;
temporary
nuisance;
trespass;
battery; and punitive damages.
res
ipsa
loquitor;
Plaintiffs further allege that
A.S.T. Environmental, Inc.; AMEC Foster Wheeler Environment &
Infrastructure, Inc.; and Clean Harbors Environmental Services,
Inc. (collectively referred to by plaintiffs as the “Remediation
Defendants”), engaged in “remediation efforts” at their property
and “were negligent in their efforts to rid Plaintiffs’ home,
personal property and real property of the remnants of the natural
gas condensate and compressor oil discharge.” (Compl., at ¶¶8-10,
46.) Plaintiffs assert counts for negligence and punitive damages
against the Remediation Defendants.
Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in Powell Circuit Court on
June 20, 2017.
The parties exchanged discovery over the following
months. Defendants served Request for Admissions, Interrogatories,
and Requests for Production of Documents on Plaintiffs in an effort
to determine the amount in controversy.
Although Plaintiffs did
not initially admit or deny that the amount in controversy exceeded
2
$75,000 [DE 1, pp. 58-59], after removal Plaintiffs supplemented
their answers to discovery and admitted that they were not seeking
in excess of $75,000 [DE 8, pp. 9-11].
The parties appear to agree
that diversity of citizenship is not at issue in the motion to
remand.
Standard
The statute authorizing removal, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, provides
that an action is removable only if it initially could have been
brought in federal court. A federal court has original “diversity”
jurisdiction where the suit is between citizens of different states
and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of costs
and interest.
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Therefore, a defendant
desiring to remove a case from state to federal court has the
burden of establishing the diversity jurisdiction requirements of
an
original
federal
court
controversy requirement.
action,
including
the
amount
in
Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org.,
441 U.S. 600, 612 n. 28 (1979). That burden is not an insubstantial
one.
McKinney v. ICG, LLC, No. 13-cv-12, 2013 WL 1898632, at *1
(E.D. Ky. May 7, 2013).
Where, as here, the complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
damages “that is not self-evidently greater or less than the
federal
amount-in-controversy
carry
its
requirement,”
burden
a
preponderance
removing
defendants
must
evidence.
Id. at *2 (E.D. Ky. May 7, 2013) (citing Gafford v.
3
by
the
of
the
Gen. Elec. Co., 997 F.2d 150, 158 (6th Cir.1993), abrogated on
other grounds by Friend, 530 U.S. 77).
The preponderance-of-the-
evidence test requires defendants to support their claims to
jurisdiction
by
producing
“competent
proof”
of
the
necessary
“jurisdictional facts.” Id. (citing Gafford, 997 F.2d at 160)
(internal
citations
omitted).
“Competent
affidavits, documents, or interrogatories.
proof”
can
include
Ramsey v. Kearns, No.
12-cv-06, 2012 WL 602812, at *1 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 23, 2012) (citing
Gentek Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Sherwin–Williams Co., 491 F.3d 320,
330 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal citation omitted)).
If the defendant does not produce evidence showing it is more
likely than not that the plaintiffs' claims exceed $75,000, the
case must be remanded to state court.
Id.
Federal courts are
courts of limited jurisdiction, therefore, any doubts regarding
federal jurisdiction should be construed in favor of remanding the
case to state court.
Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S.
100, 109 (1941); Walsh v. American Airlines, Inc., 264 F. Supp.
514, 515 (E.D. Ky. 1967).
Discussion
Here, because Defendant removed this case from state court,
it has the burden of proving that the requirements of diversity
jurisdiction, including the amount in controversy, are satisfied
by a preponderance of the evidence.
4
McKinney, 2013 WL 1898632, at
*2.
“[I]n reviewing the denial of a motion to remand, a court
looks to whether the action was properly removed in the first
place.”
Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 230 F.3d 868, 871–72
(6th Cir. 2000).
Regarding the amount in controversy, Defendant
states as follows in its Notice of Removal:
14. Upon information and belief based on TGP’s
thorough investigation, including allegations
of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Plaintiffs’
discovery responses, Plaintiff Kelsey Bellamy
seeks compensatory damages in excess of
$48,000.
15. Plaintiffs also seek punitive damages.
Even applying a conservative ratio of 1:1
punitive damages to Plaintiff Kelsey Bellamy’s
claimed compensatory damages, the amount in
controversy for her claims exceeds $75,0001,
the jurisdictional requirement of this Court.
See, e.g., Heyman v. Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 3:16-cv37-DJHDW, 2017 WL 3274452, *4 (W.D. Ky. April
27, 2017) (noting that a 1:1 punitive-damages
ratio was “minimal”); Proctor v. Swifty Oil
Co., Inc., No. 3:12-CV-00490-TBR, 2012 WL
4593409,
*2
(W.D.
Ky.
Oct.
1,
2012)
(acknowledging that “the Supreme Court has
embraced a punitive-to-compensatory damages
ratio near 4-to-1,” and holding that even a
“ratio
of
2-to-1”
was
a
“restrictive
estimate[] of compensatory and punitive
damages.”).
16. Considering the compensatory damages
described in Plaintiff Kelsey Bellamy’s
discovery responses, and the 1:1 punitive
damages ratio, the amount in controversy with
respect to Kelsey Bellamy’s claims exceeds the
jurisdictional minimum threshold of this
Court.
5
17. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction
over the claims of Johnathan Snedegar pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
[DE 1, Defendant’s Notice of Removal at ¶¶ 14-17].
Plaintiffs argue that they eventually supplemented their
discovery answers to state that they are not seeking in excess of
$75,000.
Amount-in-controversy, for purposes of removal under 28
U.S.C. § 1441, is assessed at the time of removal, not answers to
discovery a plaintiff may later make.
Notably, Plaintiffs simply
answered that they are not seeking in excess of $75,000; they have
not stipulated to that.
The Court "review[s] the damages sought by Plaintiffs at the
time of removal."
Hayes v. Equitable Energy Resources Co., 266
F.3d 560, 573 (6th Cir. 2001).
Plaintiffs claimed that the amount
in controversy would not exceed $75,000 only after this case had
already been removed.
Events occurring after removal, including
post-removal supplemental answers to discovery, "which reduce the
amount
recoverable
jurisdiction."
below
the
statutory
limit
do
not
oust
St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303
U.S. 283, 290 (1938).
At the time of removal, Plaintiffs had
provided discovery responses that included more than $48,000 in
property damages alone as related to Bellamy, and refused to
provide any value or limitation on recovery for any other personal
or real property damage, personal injury including past, present,
and future medical bills, pain and suffering, mental anguish, lost
6
wages, lost earning capacity, punitive damages, and consequential
damages. Plaintiffs now claim the $48,000 in damages they attached
to their discovery responses were not the actual value they are
seeking; however, again, the determination of jurisdiction is made
at the time of removal. At that time, Defendants had information
that reasonably supported $48,000 in property damages alone.
As
Defendants noted, a 1:1 ratio of punitive damages based only on
property damages would exceed the jurisdictional amount of this
court.
The law makes clear that a good faith claim
for punitive damages may augment compensatory
damages
in
determining
the
amount
in
controversy unless it can be said to a legal
certainty that plaintiff cannot recover
punitive damages in the action. . . . If
relevant state law permits punitive damages on
the facts alleged, such punitive damages are
part of the amount in controversy for
jurisdictional
amount
purposes.
White v. J.C. Penney Life Ins. Co., 861 F.Supp. 25, 27 (S.D. W.Va.
1994) (citing Bell v. Preferred Life Assurance Society, 320 U.S.
238 (1943)).
While it appears property damages and punitive
damages alone could reasonably exceed the jurisdictional limit of
this court, that does not include any potential award for medical
expenses, lost wages, consequential damages, or an award of pain
and suffering. Even small awards for these claimed damages further
supports Defendant’s position that the amount in controversy in
this matter was in excess of $75,000 at the time of removal.
7
Thus,
the Court finds that at the time of removal, a realistic assessment
of the record establishes the jurisdictional amount of $75,000.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein and the Court being
otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’
Motion to Remand be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
This the 28th day of September, 2018.
8
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?