Baker v. EQT Gathering of Kentucky, Inc.
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: 1) Plaintiff Mary Baker's Motion for Remand [Record No. 6] is GRANTED; However, the plaintiff's request for an award of attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) is DENIED; 2) This matt er is REMANDED to the Perry Circuit Court for further proceedings and STRICKEN from this Court's docket. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 10/08/2013.(RC)cc: COR, Clerk Perry Circuit Court Modified text to add cc: Perry Circuit Court on 10/8/2013 (RC).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION
(at London)
MARY BAKER,
Plaintiff,
V.
EQT GATHERING OF KENTUCKY,
INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 6: 13-104-DCR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
*** *** *** ***
Plaintiff Mary Baker filed this action in the Perry Circuit Court against Defendant
EQT Gathering of Kentucky, Inc. (“EQT”). [Record No. 1-3; Complaint] EQT is in the
business of leasing and transporting oil and natural gas. Baker claims that, in connection
with these activities, EQT trespassed upon her property in Perry County, Kentucky and
damaged the property in a manner that has prevented her from using it. The precise nature
of the damage is not specified in Baker’s pleadings. However, in paragraph 12 of her
Complaint, Baker alleges that,
[t]he conduct of the Defendant, its agents, independent contractors, servants
and employees as set forth, constitutes malicious, intentional and reckless
conduct in that Defendant should have known that the activities which it
authorized, ratified and executed would cause serious harm to the Plaintiff, and
persisted in such conduct with a flagrant indifference to the rights of the
Plaintiff and with knowledge that the conduct would result in harm to Plaintiff,
so as to justify sand Plaintiff being awarded punitive damages well in excess
of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) or the jurisdictional limits of this court.
-1-
[Id.] In her prayer for relief, Baker seeks, inter alia: (i) “triple damages” for the defendant’s
wrongful use of her property; (ii) damages reflecting the diminution in the subject property’s
fair market value; (iii) damages for the defendant’s alleged illegal and wrongful actions in
depriving her of the use, possession and enjoyment of the property; (iv) damages for
emotional distress; (v) punitive damages; and (vi) injunctive relief. [Id.]
Baker is a citizen and resident of Kentucky. And although the name might imply that
the EQT is a Kentucky corporation, the company is incorporated in Pennsylvania and has its
principal place of business located in that state. Thus, the parties are completely diverse.
However, the parties disagree regarding whether the amount in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional prerequisite of $75,000.00, exclusive interest and costs.
EQT originally removed the action to this Court on September 18, 2012. [See London
Civil Action No. 6: 12-197-KKC, styled: Mary Baker v. EQT Gathering of Kentucky, Inc..]
However, on February 7, 2013, the matter was remanded to the Perry Circuit Court based on
the Court’s determination that the defendant had failed to establish that the amount in
controversy exceeded the jurisdictional prerequisite. More specifically, the Court found that,
“the Complaint does not provide a basis for more than speculation about possible damages
[sought by the plaintiff].” Regarding claimed damages resulting from royalties and minerals
extracted from the property, the Court noted that “[t]here are only bare allegations; there are
no time frames or figures to form the basis of a damages estimate. Nothing in the Complaint
suggests the amount of Baker’s damages, which could be minimal, thus minimizing the
exposure for a punitive award according to the principles cited in State Farm Mutual
-2-
Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003).” [See Civil Action No. 6: 12197-KKC; Record No. 13, p. 3.]
Following remand, EQT sought to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded
$75,000.00. On April 5, 2013, EQT’s counsel served the plaintiff with the following request
for admission:
REQUEST NO. 1: That the damages you allege and seek in this case exceed
seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000).
[Record No. 1-4] Unfortunately, Baker’s attorney did not respond to this request for
admission. As a result, the matter was deemed admitted thirty days following service. See
Rule 36.01(2), Ky. R. Civ. P. However, as discussed below, the admission falls short of
establishing the jurisdictional prerequisite of exceeding $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and
costs.
On May 28, 2013, EQT again filed a Notice of Removal with this Court. [Record No.
1] In support of its jurisdictional claim, the defendant asserted that the action is between
citizens of different states and that “the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.” [Id., p. 2] The plaintiff responded to the Notice
of Removal by filing a motion to remand and a request for an award of attorney’s fees and
costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). In relevant part, counsel for Baker argued that, while
he had mistakenly failed to respond to the request for admission while the matter was
pending in the Perry Circuit Court, EQT still has not shown that the amount in controversy
exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. [Record No. 6]
-3-
A case filed in state court is removable only if it could have been brought in federal
court originally. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of
which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction[] may be
removed . . . to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing
the place where such action is pending.”); Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 83
(2005) (“[Section] 1441 . . . authorizes removal of civil actions from state court to federal
court when the action initiated in state court is one that could have been brought, originally,
in federal district court.”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts have original
jurisdiction over civil actions between citizens of different states where the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The
removing party bears the burden of establishing diversity jurisdiction. Coyne ex rel. Ohio
v. Am. Tobacco Co., 183 F.3d 488, 493 (6th Cir. 1999).
Therefore, before this Court may exercise jurisdiction over this action, the removing
party must show that there is complete diversity and that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. For better or worse, the statutory requirements
are strictly construed. As the Sixth Circuit indicated in Freeland v. Mutual Fire Insurance
Co., 632 F.3d 250 (6th Cir. 2011), it is not enough to establish that the amount in controversy
is $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, because such proof falls one penny short of the
jurisdictional requirements of the statute. Likewise, it is insufficient to allege or show that
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 without addressing interest and costs. Interest
-4-
and costs may be insignificant, but the Court cannot simply ignore the clear language of the
statute.
Here, if EQT had served a request for admission which mirrored the language of the
statute, it would have satisfied its burden of proof. However, based on the language utilized
in the sole request served on Baker’s counsel on or about April 5, 2013, the Court cannot
conclude that the statutory requirement has been satisfied. In short, while EQT has shown
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, it has not established by a preponderance
of evidence that the amount exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
Finally, the Court will deny the plaintiff’s request for attorney fees. The plaintiff,
through her counsel, could have avoided the time and expense incurred in connection with
this second removal by directly responding to the defendant’s request for admission
regarding the amount in controversy. Likewise, had EQT’s counsel included the rote
language from 28 U.S.C. § 1332 in its request for admission, the matter would have been
properly removable upon the plaintiff’s failure to respond to the request. Under the
circumstances presented, an award of costs or attorney’s fees would not be appropriate.
Instead, the parties should bear their respective costs and fees. Based on the foregoing
discussion and analysis, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
1.
Plaintiff Mary Baker’s Motion for Remand [Record No. 6] is GRANTED.
However, the plaintiff’s request for an award of attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)
is DENIED.
-5-
2.
This matter is REMANDED to the Perry Circuit Court for further proceedings
and STRICKEN from this Court’s docket.
This 8th day of October, 2013.
-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?