Charters et al v. Entergy Corporation et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Pending before the court are Plaintiffs Dennis Dean Charters and Cathy Charters's Motion to Remand # 11 and Defendant Entergy Corporation's Withdrawal of Notice of Removal and Partially Agreed and Partially Opposed M otion to Remand # 18 . Having considered the pending motions, the submission of the parties, the pleadings, and the applicable law, the court is of the opinion that remand is warranted. An order of remand will be entered separately. Signed by Judge Marcia A. Crone on 9/15/15. (mrp, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DENNIS DEEN CHARTERS, Individually
and as Personal Representative of the Estate
of Dennis Wade Charters, Deceased, and
CATHY CHARTERS, Individually and as
Representative of the Estate of Dennis Wade
Charters, Deceased,
Plaintiffs,
versus
ENTERGY CORPORATION, ROGERS
HELICOPTERS, INC., SOURCE
HELICOPTERS, and LOU WOODWARD,
Defendants.

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-199

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the court are Plaintiffs Dennis Dean Charters and Cathy Charters’s
(“Plaintiffs”) Motion to Remand (#11) and Defendant Entergy Corporation’s (“Entergy”)
Withdrawal of Notice of Removal and Partially Agreed and Partially Opposed Motion to Remand
(#18). Having considered the pending motions, the submissions of the parties, the pleadings, and
the applicable law, the court is of the opinion that remand is warranted.
This case involves the death of Dennis Wade Charters (“Charters”), an electrical lineman
who was electrocuted on September 15, 2013, while working at an Entergy Arkansas site near
Perryville, Arkansas. According to Plaintiffs, Defendant Source Helicopters (“Source”)—an
unincorporated entity conducting business in Texas and managed and directed by Defendant Lou
Woodward (“Woodward”), a Texas resident—served as an arranger or facilitator for the work at

the Entergy site. Specifically, Source used helicopters to support the work of electrical linemen
like Charters.
On September 11, 2014, Plaintiffs filed suit in the 60th Judicial District Court of Jefferson
County, Texas, asserting negligence claims against Rogers, Source, and Woodward.1 Thereafter,
Plaintiffs amended their petition, adding negligence claims against Entergy. Entergy was served
with the amended petition on April 22, 2015. It removed the case with the consent of the other
defendants on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, claiming that Source and Woodward were not
properly joined as defendants. After Plaintiffs moved to remand the case, however, Entergy filed
the instant motion to withdraw its notice of removal, conceding therein that remand is proper.
Although Rogers, Source, and Woodard purportedly oppose remand, they have failed to
file a written response in opposition to either motion. Local Rule CV-7(d) provides that in the
event a party fails to oppose a motion in the manner prescribed in the rule, the court will assume
that the party has no opposition. In this case, Plaintiffs’ motion was filed on June 22, 2015, and
Entergy’s motion was filed on August 26, 2015. As of today, no response in opposition has been
filed, and the deadline for responses has expired. Therefore, under Local Rule CV-7(d), the
motions are deemed to be unopposed. Unopposed motions are routinely granted, and this court

1

At the time Charters was killed, Woodward had focused Source’s key operations in Beaumont,
Jefferson County, Texas.

2

can discern no reason for failing to grant the current motion.2 Accordingly, the instant motions

.
are GRANTED. An order of remand will be entered separately.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 7th day of September, 2004.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 15th day of September, 2015.

________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

A review of the record suggests that Source and Woodward, Texas citizens, are properly joined
as defendants in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) (“A civil action otherwise removable solely on the
basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a) of this title may not be removed if any of the parties in
interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is
brought.”). In any event, the burden of demonstrating improper joinder is a heavy one and, in light of
Entergy’s concession that remand is appropriate and the remaining defendants’ failure to respond, the court
finds they have failed to show improper joinder. See African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Lucien, 756
F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2014)(“[T]he burden of demonstrating improper joinder is a heavy one.”).

3