Winter v. Pioneer Drilling Services, LTD et al

Filing 78

ORDER denying 64 Motion to Certify; denying 64 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 12/1/2015. (SLL, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION

RANDALL WINTER,
individually and as Personal
Representative of the ESTATE OF
KYLE WINTER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PIONEER DRILLING SERVICES,
LTD., a Texas corporation; WHITING
OIL AND GAS CORPORATION,
a Delaware corporation; and JOHN
DOES 1–5.

CV-14-20-GF-BMM-01

ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
CERTIFY QUESTION
OF LAW TO THE
NORTH DAKOTA
SUPREME COURT AND TO
STAY TRIAL

Defendants.

SYNOPSIS
The Court conducted a hearing on Defendant Whiting Oil and Gas
Corporation’s Motion to Certify Question of Law to the North Dakota Supreme
Court and to Stay Trial of the Present Matter (Doc. 64) on November 23, 2015.
(Doc. 75.) Whiting Oil and Gas Corporation (“Whiting”) urges this Court to certify
the following question of law to the North Dakota Supreme Court:
Can Plaintiff Randall Winter, as Personal Representative of the Estate
of Kyle Winter, recover damages for Kyle Winter’s lost earnings or

earning capacity based on Kyle Winter’s life expectancy at the time of
his death?
Plaintiff Randall Winter contends that the Court should deny Whiting’s
motion. (Doc. 70.) The Court agrees with Whiting that North Dakota case law does
not address specifically this precise issue. The Court determines that it possesses
sufficient authority, however, from which to resolve this issue and that certification
to the North Dakota Supreme Court proves unnecessary.
DISCUSSION
The United States Supreme Court has approved the limited use of certified
questions to state supreme courts when a federal court case involves an important
question of state law which proves both unclear under state legal precedent and
would be determinative in the instant case. Virginia v. American Booksellers Ass’n,
484 U.S. 383, 393–398 (1988).
North Dakota Rule of Appellate Procedure 47 states that the North Dakota
Supreme Court has the power to answer certified questions where: (1) North
Dakota law may be determinative of the proceeding before this Court; and (2) it
appears to this Court that no controlling precedent exists in the decisions of the
North Dakota Supreme Court. The certification procedure exists to resolve state
law questions that present significant issues, including those with important public
policy ramifications, and that have not yet been resolved by the state courts. Clark

County Sch. Dist. v. Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co. of Am., 2015 WL 1578163, at *2
(D. Nev. Apr. 8, 2015).
Defendant Whiting cites an excerpt from McKenzie Co. v. Hodel, 467
N.W.2d 701, 704 (N.D. 1991), for its proposition that the North Dakota Supreme
Court has adopted a less stringent standard for deciding when to answer certified
questions from courts in other jurisdictions. (Doc. 65 at 5.) The North Dakota
Supreme Court reasoned that if the certifying court remains free to speculate upon
unsettled issues of North Dakota law, the parties would have no recourse in the
North Dakota appellate courts. Id.
Federal courts have a duty to address matters of state law, however, even
when that law appears unsettled. Jung v. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wisconsin, 651 F.3d
796, 801 (8th Cir. 2011). A federal court may consider whether law from other
states proves instructive. Kremen v. Cohen, 325 F.3d 1035, 103738 (9th Cir.2003).
The court may also consider whether certification would aid in preserving time,
money, and resources. Complaint of McLinn, 744 F.2d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 1984).
When a court decides against certification, it must make a reasonable
determination of the result the highest state court would reach if it were deciding
the case. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Sheft, 989 F.2d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir. 1993).
The North Dakota Supreme Court applies the common law where there
exists no express constitutional or statutory declaration on a subject. Burris Carpet

Plus, Inc. v. Burris, 785 N.W.2d 164, 178 (N.D. 2010). In In re Estate of Conley,
753 N.W.2d 384, 391–92, (N.D. 2008), the Court determined that the common law
comes from various sources, including other federal and state courts. This Court
possesses sufficient authority rooted in state common law from which to decide the
present issue.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to
Certify Question of Law to the North Dakota Supreme Court and to Stay Trial of
the Present Matter (Doc. 64) is DENIED.
DATED this 1st day of December, 2015.