Raynes v. McMoRan Exploration Company et al

Filing 245

ORDER denying 235 Motion to Stay, Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk. (Reference: 10-1730)(car, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CIVIL ACTION

JAMIE RAYNES, ET AL.

VERSUS

No. 08-5018 C/W 10-1730
(REF: 10-1730)

MCMORAN EXPLORATION
COMPANY, ET AL.

SECTION “I”

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is plaintiff Jamie Raynes’s (“Raynes”) motion1 to stay all pending
motions and orders in case no. 10-17302 of the above-captioned consolidated matter and remand
the case to state court. Defendants, Production Services Network U.S., Inc. (“PSN”), McMoran
Exploration Company (“McMoran”), and Petro Construction Management, LLC, oppose the
motion.3
The parties in case no. 10-1730 are Raynes and McMoran. The parties do not dispute
that Raynes is a Mississippi citizen and that McMoran is a Louisiana citizen. Consequently,
complete diversity exists.
28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) prohibits removal of a lawsuit to federal court when one of the
defendants “is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” This “forum defendant
1

No. 08-5018, R. Doc. No. 235.

2

Raynes’s motion is not clear whether it pertains to the entire consolidated matter or solely to case no. 10-1730.
The motion does not have a caption indicating to which matter the motion applies and the memorandum in support
of the motion states that the Court “must remand the matter pending against McMoRan back to Civil District Court
for the Parish of Orleans.” No. 08-5018, R. Doc. No. 235-1, p. 1. PSN filed an opposition due to its belief that
Raynes’s motion referred to the entire consolidated case. No. 08-5018, R. Doc. No. 236, pp. 1-2. In his reply to
PSN’s opposition, Raynes emphatically states that his “motion sub judice pertains only to the action against
McMoRan, Civil Action No. 10-0173 [sic].” R. Doc. No. 241, p.1. Consequently, the Court will construe Raynes’s
motion as a motion to remand case no. 10-1730.
3

No. 08-5018, R. Doc. Nos. 236, 243, and 244.

rule” is a procedural, rather than a jurisdictional, requirement. In re: 1994 Exxon Chem. Fire,
558 F.3d 378, 396 (5th Cir. 2009). 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) states that a “motion to remand the case
on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30
days of the notice of removal . . . .” “By not moving to remand within 30 days of the notice of
removal, the party waives its right to object to any removal defects except for lack of original
subject matter jurisdiction.” Vicknair v. All. Serv. Mach. Shop, Inc., Civil Action No. 98-1035,
1998 WL 290207, at *2 (E.D. La. June 2, 1998) (Vance, J.) (citing In re Digicon Marine, Inc.,
966 F.3d 158, 160 (5th Cir. 1992); In re Shell Oil Co., 932 F.2d 1518, 1522-23 (5th Cir. 1991)).
More than one year has passed since case no. 10-1730 was removed to federal court.4
This Court has previously found that Raynes failed to move to remand this case based on the
forum defendant rule prior to the expiration of the thirty day window for such a motion.5 The
Court once again reiterates that because Raynes failed to file his motion to remand within thirty
days of removal, any argument based on the forum defendant rule is waived. This Court has
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 based on diversity of citizenship.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.

3rd
New Orleans, Louisiana, August _____, 2011.

__________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4

No. 10-1730, R. Doc. No. 1.

5

No. 08-5018, R. Doc. No. 99.
2