Jones et al v. Consolidation Coal Company

Filing 94

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY ON DAMAGES AS IT PERTAINS TO THE $300,000.00 CLAIM AND CONFIRMING PRONOUNCED ORDER OF THE COURT GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO REO RDER AND BIFURCATE: It is ORDERED that Defendant's 55 Motion in limine as it relates to the Plaintiff's contention for $300,000.00 in damages is denied in part. It is further ORDERED that Defendant's 56 Motion in Limine to Reorder and Bifurcate is granted. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr on 3/27/14. (cnd) Modified relationship on 3/27/2014 (cnd).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
JAMES D. JONES, II, TIMOTHY E. JONES
and JANET L. JONES,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. 1:13CV11
(STAMP)

CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY
d/b/a CONSOL ENERGY, a Delaware
for profit corporation authorized
to do business in West Virginia,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY ON DAMAGES AS IT
PERTAINS TO THE $300,000.00 CLAIM AND
CONFIRMING PRONOUNCED ORDER OF THE COURT
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
TO REORDER AND BIFURCATE
I.

Procedural History

This case was removed to this Court from the Circuit Court of
Marion

County,

West

Virginia.

There

were

originally

two

defendants, however, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of
Consol Energy, Inc.; thus, Consolidation Coal Company is the only
remaining defendant.

The plaintiffs are seeking a declaratory

judgment that they are the owners of a 0.25 acre parcel of land in
Marion County, West Virginia, and seek compensatory damages for
willful trespass for the defendant’s removal of coal underlying the
parcel and for the defendant’s continued use of the subsurface.

The defendant filed an answer and counterclaim to the plaintiffs’
complaint.

In its counterclaim, the defendant claims that it had

rightful possession of the property pursuant to adverse possession
by Warren and Juanita Mafield, persons who allegedly occupied the
subject property.

Thus, the defendant requests that this Court

find that it is entitled to a declaratory judgment that title to
the property was acquired through adverse possession and quiet
title to the 0.25 acre parcel of land.
The defendant has filed two motions in limine.

In its first

motion in limine, the defendant requests that this Court exclude
any testimony the plaintiffs may offer regarding the valuation of
the coal mined from the property or the use of the subsurface of
the property.
part.

This Court had previously granted that motion in

This order will discuss the issue left open by that order,

namely the plaintiffs’ contention that they may have a claim for
$300,000.00 in damages.

In its second motion in limine, the

defendant requests that this Court allow the defendant to present
its case first as to the adverse possession claim and that the
issue of damages be bifurcated from the adverse possession phase.
The plaintiffs timely filed responses to both of the defendant’s
motions.
II.

The Plaintiffs’ $300,000.00 Claim

As stated in this Court’s previous order, the Court was unsure
of what the parties actual contentions were as to the plaintiffs’

2

claim that they may be entitled to $300,000.00 in damages.

This

issue arose because the defendant had indicated in an affidavit by
Phillip J. Molesky, an employee of a subsidiary of the defendant,
filed

with

its

notice

of

removal

(ECF

No.

1-4)

as

part

of

defendant’s contentions that the amount in controversy exceeded
$75,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs, that it would likely
cost approximately $300,000.00 to perform remedial work to seal the
coal mine on the subject property.
parties

indicated

that

the

Before commencing trial, the

$300,000.00

claim

was

still

in

contention but that neither had prepared evidence to present the
$300,000.00 claim to the jury. Further, the parties indicated that
they were unsure of how such a claim should be presented to the
jury.
As such, this Court found that if this Court were to proceed
to the damages phases, that the parties would not present evidence
on the plaintiffs’ $300,000.00 claim.

Rather, this Court would

hold that issue in contention to possibly be decided at a later
point in time after an evidentiary hearing could be held by this
Court.

As such, as much as the defendant’s motion in limine

regarding the exclusion of testimony on damages addressed the
$300,000.00 claim, this Court will deny in part that part of the
defendant’s motion.1

1

In the alternative, the Court finds that this issue is moot
because the trial ended after the adverse possession phase and
before this Court finally ruled on this part of the defendant’s
3

III.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Reorder and Bifurcate

The defendant requests that this Court allow the defendant to
present its case first because it has the burden of proof in this
action.

Further, the defendant requests that this Court bifurcate

the issue of judgment of ownership of the subject property and the
issue of trespass and damages.

The plaintiffs object to the

defendant’s motion and argue that because the defendant has denied
the plaintiffs’ allegations that they acquired ownership by general
warranty deed, the plaintiffs would still have the burden of
proving they are the rightful owners even if the defendant did not
prevail on the adverse possession claim.

However, the plaintiffs

indicate that they would not object to the defendant’s motion if
the parties were able to enter into a pretrial stipulation that if
the defendant did not prevail on its claim of adverse possession,
this would conclude the issue of title.

Thus, the only issue that

would be left would be the amount of damages the plaintiffs have
sustained.
At the pretrial conference held by this Court on March 17,
2014,

the

defendant

stipulated

that

if

it

lost

its

adverse

possession claim at that phase of the trial, it would concede that
the plaintiffs had rightful title to the subject property.

As the

plaintiffs had indicated in their response that such a stipulation

motion. As such, the trial did not proceed to the damages phase
and thus this issue was mooted.
4

would quiet their contentions to the defendant’s motion, the Court
grants the defendant’s motion.

The Court notes that this order is

only reiterating this Court’s earlier ruling on March 24, 2014,
which was made before the commencement of trial on March 25, 2014.
IV.

Conclusion

Accordingly, based on the analysis above, the defendant’s
motion in limine as it relates to the plaintiffs’ contention for
$300,000.00 in damages is DENIED IN PART. Further, the defendant’s
motion in limine to reorder and bifurcate is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this memorandum
opinion and order to counsel of record herein.
DATED:

March 27, 2014

/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5