Crawford v. Devon Energy Production Company, L.P.
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER denying 7 Motion to Remand filed by Kelly M Crawford. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 12/7/2017) (bdb)
r---~u~s~-:1~1r-~~~rn_i~C:T ___ _
\ Nt}R1'1{I~lU'.'f 1Jl'.~·r;_~JC'T r._)r ;
DISTRIC~ COUR\F~--E
IN THE UNITED STATES
NORTHERN DISTRICT oF TE~As
FORT WORTH DIVISION \
\
I
.
KELLY CRAWFORD, RECEIVER OF
BRAZOS ROCK, INC.,
oEc _7zmT
L-~
CLElZY-._, U.S. DISrl \:\._\_C·i
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
[
§
vs.
§
NO. 4:17-CV-806-A
§
DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION
COMPANY, L.P.,
§
§
§
Defendant.
l
I
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
and
ORDER
Before the court for consideration and decision is the
motion to remand filed by plaintiff, Kelly Crawford, Receiver of
Brazos Rock, Inc., in the above-captioned action.
Having
considered the motion, the response of defendant, Devon Energy
Production Company, L.P., plaintiff's reply, defendant's surreply, the record, and applicable legal authorities, the court
concludes that the motion should be denied.
I.
Background
Plaintiff initiated this action on August 25, 2017, by the
filing of an original petition in the District Court of Parker
County, Texas, 43rd Judicial District.
The action was
subsequently transferred to the District Court of Parker County,
Texas, 415th Judicial District, and then removed by defendant to
i
!
this court on October 9, 2017, on the basis that this court had
subject matter jurisdiction by reason of diversity of
citizenship, and that the amount in controversy exceeded the sum
or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, as
contemplated by 28 U.S.C.
§
1332.
II.
Grounds of the Motion
Plaintiff contends that remand is proper because the 415th
Judicial District Court of Parker County, Texas, is by order of
that court the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiff's
claims.
Plaintiff also argued in its motion that remand of this
case is proper because defendant waived its right to remove the
case by filing the notice of removal too late.
In plaintiff's
reply, he conceded that his arguments are without merit, but
argued that this court should still abstain from exercising
jurisdiction and grant his motion to remand because of the
equitable nature of his claims against defendant.
III.
Analysis
Diversity jurisdiction exists when the parties are citizens
of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
28 U.S.C.
§
1332.
Defendant's notice of removal stated that it is a citizen of
2
Oklahoma and Delaware and that plaintiff is a citizen of Texas.
Further, defendant pointed out that plaintiff's damages, as
stated in his state court petition, far exceed the $75,000.00
threshold required for removal to federal court based on§ 1332.
Thus, exercising jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of
citizenship in this case is proper unless plaintiff can point to
a reason the court should abstain from exercising such
jurisdiction.
Plaintiff urges the court to abstain from exercising
jurisdiction, because, he argues,
"this Court has the discretion
in equity to abstain from exercising such jurisdiction."
12 at 1-2.
Doc. 1
Presumably, though he never explicitly states so,
plaintiff is requesting that the court abstain from exercising
jurisdiction under the Burford abstention doctrine, which allows
a court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction whenever doing so
would unduly interfere with complex administrative procedures. 2
Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943).
Under the Burford
doctrine,
[w]here timely and adequate state-court review is
available, a federal court sitting in equity must
decline to interfere with the proceedings or orders of
1
The "Doc._" reference is to the number of the item on the court's docket in this action.
'Though plaintiff never explicitly states that he is requesting the com1 abstain from exercising
jurisdiction based on the Burford doctrine, the court assumes such was his intent based on his citing of
the Quackenbush decision, which dealt with such legal principle almost exclusively.
3
state administrative agencies: (1) when there are
difficult questions of state law bearing on policy
problems of substantial public import whose importance
transcends the result in the case then at bar; or (2)
where the exercise of federal review of the question in
a case and in similar cases would be disruptive of
state efforts to establish a coherent policy with
respect to a matter of substantial concern.
New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of New Orleans ("NOPSI"),
491 U.S. 350, 361 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted).
"Essentially, Burford instructs a district court to. weigh the
federal interests in retaining jurisdiction over the dispute
against the state's interests in independent action to uniformly
address a matter of state concern, and to abstain when the
balance tips in favor of the latter.•
Poultry, Inc., 174 F.3d 697, 700
Webb v. B.C. Rogers
(5th Cir. 1999).
Plaintiff cites Quackenbush v. Allstate Insurance Company
for the proposition that this action should be remanded due to
the equitable nature of his quantum meruit and unjust enrichment
claims.
See 517 U.S. 706
(1996).
But the claims raised by
plaintiff here are not the type that warrant a Burford
abstention.
The Fifth Circuit, in interpreting Quackenbush, has
explicitly stated that,
abstention.•
•an action seeking damages never warrants
Webb, 174 F.3d at 701.
Plaintiff is seeking actual
damages from defendant in the amount of $434,196.
Doc. 1 at 15.
Accordingly, abstention is not proper, see Quackenbush, 517 U.S.
at 731; Webb, 174 F.3d at 703, nor should the action be remanded.
4
IV.
Order
Based on the foregoing,
The court ORDERS that plaintiff's motion to remand be, and
is hereby, denied.
'J
SIGNED December j__, 2017.
I
,-f
t?7
J9H,t<( McBRYDE"
Jfrvited States District Jud e
I
(
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?