Fasterling et al v. Hilcorp Energy Company et al

Filing 46

ORDER & REASONS: granting 20 Motion to Remand to State Court; FURTHER ORDERED that the Oral Argument on this motion, currently scheduled for June 3, 2015, is CANCELLED. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 5/29/15. (sek)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CHARLES FASTERLING, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 15-629

HILCORP ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL

SECTION: J(3)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Remand (Rec. Doc. 20) filed
by

Plaintiffs,

Charles

Fasterling,

et

al

(“Plaintiffs”),

an

Opposition thereto (Rec. Doc. 38) by Defendants, Hilcorp Energy
Company, et al (“Defendants”), and Plaintiffs’ Reply (Rec. Doc.
45). Having considered the motion, the parties’ submissions, the
record, and the applicable law, the Court finds, for the reasons
expressed below, that the motion should be GRANTED.
This matter is one of a number of lawsuits removed to this
Court, commonly known as the “Oil Patch Cases.” The arguments
for remand set forth by the parties in this matter are nearly
identical

to

those

presented

in

Borne

v.

Chevron

U.S.A.

Holdings, Inc., et al, No. 15-631. Due to the vast similarities
between Borne and the matter at hand, the Court fully adopts the
reasoning set forth in its previous Order remanding the Borne
matter. (Borne, Rec. Doc. 49).
1

In this matter, Defendants also argue that general maritime
law provides a basis for federal jurisdiction because Plaintiffs
have not specifically requested a jury trial. Because Plaintiffs
have informed the Court that they intend to request a jury, and
the time to do so has not yet run, Defendants’ argument on this
subject is rendered moot.
Moreover,

despite

Defendants’

allegations

that

OCSLA

jurisdiction provides a basis for removal of this matter, they
have

provided

the

Court

with

no

additional

arguments

to

distinguish the present circumstances from those in Borne.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT

IS

HEREBY

ORDERED

that

Plaintiffs’

Motion

to

Remand

(Rec. Doc. 22) is GRANTED.
IT

IS

FURTHER

ORDERED

that

the

Oral

Argument

on

this

motion, currently scheduled for June 3, 2015, is CANCELLED.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 29th day of May, 2015.

________________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2