Browder et al v. X T O Energy Inc

Filing 52

MEMORANDUM ORDER: XTO and Anadarkos motions for a more definite statement [Record Documents 4, and 45] are GRANTED. Anadarkos previous Motion for a More Definite Statement [Record Document 25] is DENIED as MOOT. Plaintiffs have until 3/30/2012 to fil e a concise and clear statement of their claims. Anadarkos Amended Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 8(a) [Record Document 45] is DENIED. Anadarkos previous Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 8(a) [Record Document 25] is DENIED as MOOT. Anadarkos Am ended Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) [Record Document 45] is DENIED, and Anadarkos previous Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) [Record Document 25] is DENIED as MOOT.Plaintiffs have until 4/6/2012 to properly serve Anadarko. Pla intiffs motion to strike Anadarkos motions [Record Document 29] is DENIED. Plaintiffs Motion to Amend/Correct Case [Record Document 36] is also DENIED. Plaintiffs Motion for Jury Trial [Record Document 28] is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Elizabeth E Foote on 2/19/2012. (crt,Putch, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION

DARRYL KEITH BROWDER, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-CV-01428

VERSUS

JUDGE ELIZABETH ERNY FOOTE

XTO ENERGY INC.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM ORDER
In this case, Plaintiffs appearing pro se allege that Defendants have interfered
with or failed or properly compensate them for their minerals rights. A number of
motions stemming from Plaintiffs’ unfamiliarity with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
are currently pending before the Court. The Court will address each motion in turn.
I.

Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se in this matter. As explained below, it is difficult

to determine the exact nature of the Plaintiffs’ claims, but they appear to revolve
around Plaintiffs’ alleged mineral interests in properties in Bossier and Webster
Parishes. Plaintiffs originally brought suit against XTO Energy Inc. (“XTO”) in the 26th
Judicial District Court of Bossier Parish, Louisiana on or about July 7, 2011. XTO
removed the suit to this Court on August 3, 2011. The Court held a status conference
on October 11, 2011, at which time it granted Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their
complaint to join Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (“Anadarko”) as a Defendant.
[Record Document 21]. During that conference, the Court also stayed all deadlines and
Page 1 of 8

proceedings in this case until December 11, 2011 in order to allow Plaintiffs an
opportunity to obtain counsel. Id. Service of Anadarko, however, was allowed to
proceed. Id. Plaintiffs have failed to obtain counsel. Instead, Darryl Browder has
signed most of the filings on behalf of himself and the other plaintiffs who are
apparently members of his family.
II.

Defendants’ Motions for a More Definite Statement of the Pleading
Multiple Motions for a More Definite Statement of the Pleading by Defendants

XTO and Anadarko [Record Documents 4, 45] are before the Court. Rule 8(a)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires every pleading to contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”. Rules 8(d)(3) and
8(d)(1) provide that a party may state inconsistent claims, but that “each allegation
must be simple, concise, and direct.” Rule 12(e) provides that “a party may move for a
more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but
which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.”
See also Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc., 197 F.3d 161, 164 (5th Cir. 1999).
Plaintiffs’ statements of their claims are neither short nor plain. Plaintiffs make
clear that they believe that Defendants have wronged them by interfering somehow
with some interest Plaintiffs have in some property. However, the internal
contradictions and stream-of-consciousness style of the petition force Defendants to
guess at the exact nature of the Plaintiffs’ claims and the relief sought. Plaintiffs are
clearly handicapped by their lack of legal expertise but the Court while sympathetic to

Page 2 of 8

the Plaintiffs predicament cannot excuse them from the basic requirements of Rule
8(a)(2). By way of example, Plaintiffs’ petition begins by asking the Court to “INFORCE
THE LA.LAW IMMEDIATELY.IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 11 WEST,
IN BOSSIER PARISH, LOUISIANA.” [Record Document 1-2, p.3]. However, the
documents Plaintiffs attach to their petition relate to property in Webster Parish,
Louisiana. Id. at 14-27. Plaintiffs assert that they did not sign any “division orders” or
an “oil, gas and mineral lease.” Id. at 6. However, after quoting sources of law relating
to division orders and mineral leases, Plaintiffs appear to assert a claim for “MONEYS
FOR PRODUCTION UNDER THE HABENDUM CLAUS OF THE LEASE. AND FOR
COMPENSATORY ROYALTY PAYMENTS, AND FOR CONSTRUCTIVE PRODUCTION FOR
PURPOSES OF MAINTAINING A LEASE”. Id. at 12. Though most of the petition
appears to deal with oil and gas production, an allegation concerning salt and sulphur
production is found in the middle of a page-long paragraph at page ten of the petition.
Id. at 12. In general, the petition is disorganized, being composed of run-on sentences
and incomplete thoughts with few paragraph breaks.
While Rule 8(d)(3) allows a party to “state as many separate claims or defenses
as it has, regardless of consistency” it is unclear whether the inconsistencies in the
petition are merely the result of stating claims in the alternative or whether they are
part of the same claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(3). The fundamental problem with
Plaintiffs’ complaint is it is extremely difficult to make out any discrete claims, whereas
Rule 8(d)(1) requires each allegation to be “simple, concise, and direct.” Rule 12(e)

Page 3 of 8

provides the Defendants a procedural mechanism for redress. Because the petition is
too vague and ambiguous for Defendants to reasonably prepare a response, the Court
hereby GRANTS XTO and Anadarko’s motions for a more definite statement [Record
Documents 4, and 45]. Anadarko’s previous Motion for a More Definite Statement
[Record Document 25] is accordingly DENIED as MOOT.
Plaintiffs have until March 30, 2012 to file a concise and clear statement of
their claims. Failure to meet this deadline may result in dismissal of Plaintiffs’ suit.
Plaintiffs’ statement should be short and should clearly specify the following: 1) the
properties and minerals involved; 2) the rights of the Plaintiffs in the properties and
minerals; 3) the ways in which both XTO and Anadarko have allegedly interfered with
those rights; and 4) the relief which the Plaintiffs seek.
III.

Anadarko’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 8(a)
Defendant Anadarko has also moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pointing to the vagueness and
ambiguity of Plaintiff’s petition. [Record Document 45]. Although, as explained above,
the vagueness and ambiguity of Plaintiff’s petition compel the Court to grant
Defendants’ motions for a more definite statement, dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint is
not appropriate at this time. Rule 8(e) provides that “[p]leadings must be construed as
to do justice.” Furthermore, pro se pleadings must be treated liberally, and dismissal
under Rule 12(b)(6) is generally disfavored. U.S. v. Robinson, 78 F.3d 172, 174 (5th Cir.
1996); Priester v. Lowndes County, 354 F.3d 414, 418 (5th Cir. 2004). At this early

Page 4 of 8

stage in the litigation, given that the Plaintiffs are appearing pro se and that the primary
defect with their complaint is its lack of clarify, the proper remedy is for the Court to
order a more definite statement rather than to dismiss the complaint outright. Beanal
v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc., 197 F.3d 161, 164 (5th Cir. 1999) (“If a complaint is
ambiguous or does not contain sufficient information to allow a responsive pleading to
be framed, the property remedy is a motion for a more definite statement under Rule
12(e)”). Accordingly, Anadarko’s Amended Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 8(a)
[Record Document 45] is DENIED. Of course, if Plaintiffs fail to provide a more definite
statement of their claims, Anadarko may file another 12(b)(6) motion. Anadarko’s
previous Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 8(a) [Record Document 25] is DENIED as
MOOT.
IV.

Anadarko’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5)
In their Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) [Record Document 45],

Anadarko argues that because Plaintiffs failed to include a summons with their
complaint they have failed to serve Anadarko. After a careful review of the record, the
Court is persuaded that Plaintiffs have failed to prove that service was proper, since
there is no indication in the record that a summons was included with their complaint.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1) (“A summons must be served with a copy of the complaint.”);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l) (“Unless service is waived, proof of service must be made to the
court.”).
The question remains whether the 120-days allowed by Rule 4(m) for Plaintiff to

Page 5 of 8

effect service have elapsed. During the status conference held on October 11, 2011, the
Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend their complaint to add Anadarko as a
Defendant [Record Document 20]. [Record Document 21]. During that conference, the
Court also stayed all deadlines until December 11, 2011 in order to allow Plaintiffs to
obtain Counsel. [Record Document 21]. However, the Court allowed service of
Anadarko to go forward during the stay, implying that the 120-day deadline would
continue to run from October 11, 2011. Id. Since more than 120-days have passed
since the October 11, 2011 conference, Plaintiffs have failed to properly effectuate
service on Anadarko. However, Rule 4(m) provides that “if the plaintiff shows good
cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate
period.” Plaintiffs appearing pro se have not failed to serve Anadarko for lack of
diligence. Cox v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 2002 WL 1812049 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2002)
(“The Court notes that Plaintiff is pro se. While the plaintiff has not met the service
requirements of Rule 4, he has attempted to serve the defendant. This demonstrates
that plaintiff’s failure to property serve the defendant is not wholly due to a lack of
diligence. The Court finds that the record demonstrates sufficient good cause for the
plaintiff’s failure to serve the defendant within the 120-day period.”). Plaintiffs have, in
good faith, attempted to serve Anadarko and they have taken pains to attempt to prove
service. [Record Document 24]. The Court is persuaded that Plaintiff’s efforts to serve
Anadarko coupled with their unfamiliarity with the means for properly effecting service
constitute good cause for the purposes of Rule 4(m). Accordingly, Anadarko’s Amended

Page 6 of 8

Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) [Record Document 45] is DENIED, and
Anadarko’s previous Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) [Record Document 25]
is DENIED as MOOT.
The Court hereby SETS a deadline for Plaintiffs to properly serve Anadarko for
April 6, 2012. By that date, Plaintiffs must have properly served Anadarko with both a
complaint and summons in a manner allowed by Rule 4(h). Failure to meet this
deadline may result in dismissal of Plaintiff’s suit.
V.

Plaintiffs’ Motions
In light of the Court’s above rulings, Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Anadarko’s

motions [Record Document 29] is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct Case
[Record Document 36] is also DENIED in light of the Court’s above order requiring
Plaintiffs to file a clearer statement of their claims. Finally, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Jury
Trial [Record Document 28] is GRANTED.
VI.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Court makes the following rulings:
1)

XTO and Anadarko’s motions for a more definite statement [Record
Documents 4, and 45] are GRANTED. Anadarko’s previous Motion for a
More Definite Statement [Record Document 25] is DENIED as MOOT.
Plaintiffs have until March 30, 2012 to file a concise and clear statement
of their claims.

2)

Anadarko’s Amended Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 8(a) [Record

Page 7 of 8

Document 45] is DENIED. Anadarko’s previous Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to Rule 8(a) [Record Document 25] is DENIED as MOOT.
3)

Anadarko’s Amended Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) [Record
Document 45] is DENIED, and Anadarko’s previous Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) [Record Document 25] is DENIED as MOOT.
Plaintiffs have until April 6, 2012 to properly serve Anadarko.

4)

Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Anadarko’s motions [Record Document 29] is
DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct Case [Record Document
36] is also DENIED. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Jury Trial [Record Document
28] is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. February 19, 2012.

Page 8 of 8