Currence et al v. Wolf Run Mining, LLC et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying 6 Motion to Remand. Signed by District Judge John Preston Bailey on 4/30/20. (njz)

Case 2:20-cv-00010-JPB Document 8 Filed 04/30/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 183

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Elkins
KRISTOPHER CURRENCE and
TRINITY CURRENCE,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. 2:20-CV-10
Judge Bailey

WOLF RUN MINING, LLC and
ARCH COAL, INC.,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND
Pending before this Court is Plaintiffs’ Kristopher Currence and Trinity Currence’s
Motion to Remand [Doc. 6]. In their Motion, the plaintiffs contend that there is not complete
diversity between the plaintiffs and the defendants and, therefore, this Court lacks
jurisdiction to hear this case. They seek an order remanding this case back to the Circuit
Court of Barbour County, West Virginia.
On November 18, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the Circuit Court of
Barbour County, West Virginia, alleging that Wolf Run and Arch Coal subjected Kristopher
Currence to a hostile and offensive working environment in violation of the West Virginia
Human Rights Act, W.Va. Code § 5-11-1, et seq., based upon unwanted and unwelcome
sexual harassment, offensive touching, groping, innuendos, crude jukes and comments,
and dirty tricks [Doc. 1-1]. The defendants were served with summons and Complaint on
March 3, 2020.

1

Case 2:20-cv-00010-JPB Document 8 Filed 04/30/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 184

On March 20, 2020, the defendants removed this case to this Court. In their Notice
of Removal [Doc. 1], the defendants pled that Arch Coal is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. The defendants also state that Wolf Run,
LLC, is a West Virginia limited liability company, which is wholly owned by Hunter Ridge,
LLC. In turn, Hunter Ridge, LLC is wholly owned by the Arch Coal Operations LLC. Arch
Coal Operations LLC is owned by three entities: Arch Coal, Inc. (42.2%), Arch Coal Group,
LLC (56.8%), and Hunter Ridge Holdings, Inc. (1%).
In their response to the Motion to Remand, the defendants provided documentation
concerning their citizenship.
The citizenship of a limited liability company is determined by the citizenship of all
of its members. Cent. W. Va. Energy Co., Inc. v. Mountain St. Carbon, LLC, 636 F.3d
101, 103 (4th Cir. 2011) (citing Gen. Tech. Applications, Inc. v. Exro Ltda, 388 F.3d 114,
121 (4th Cir. 2004)); Saxon Fibers, LLC. v. Wood, 118 Fed. Appx. 750, 753 (4th Cir.
2005) (citing Exro Ltda, 388 F.3d at 120).
As noted by defendants, this is true regardless of whether the party is a “managermanaged limited liability company”:
While a manager-managed limited liability company looks and acts
somewhat like a corporation, especially with regard to derivative actions and
members’ claims, this argument misses the mark. A limited liability company
organized under the laws of a state is not a corporation and cannot be
treated as such under [28 U.S.C.] section 1332 until Congress says
otherwise. . . . It is an unincorporated association, akin to a partnership for

2

Case 2:20-cv-00010-JPB Document 8 Filed 04/30/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 185

diversity purposes, whose citizenship is that of its members.
Gen. Tech. Applications, 388 F.3d at 121 (citing GMAC Commercial Credit LLC v.
Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., 357 F.3d 827, 829 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting Carden v. Arkoma
Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 197 (1990))); Markwest Liberty Midstream & Res., L.L.C. v.
Bilfinger Westcon, Inc., 2016 WL 6553591, at *2 (N.D. W.Va. Nov. 4, 2016) (not reported)
(Bailey, J.); see also Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 105 (3d Cir.
2015) (for the purpose of diversity jurisdiction, “The state of organization and the principal
place of business of an unincorporated association are legally irrelevant.” (footnote
omitted)); Johnson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 724 F.3d 337, 350-52 (3d Cir. 2013)
(determining the citizenship of a manager-managed limited liability company on the basis
of its owner and stating, “form matters for purposes of establishing jurisdiction, and the
distinction between a corporation and an unincorporated entity has tremendous
jurisdictional significance.

The Supreme Court has emphasized that, although a

corporation has citizenship, unincorporated entities do not, regardless of their substantive
similarities to corporations.”) (citing Carden, 494 U.S. at 195)); Anaya v. Lowe's Home
Centers, LLC, 2014 WL 2199878, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2014) (not reported)
(determining the citizenship of a manager-managed LLC according to the citizenship of its
sole member); Frith v. Martinsville Thermal, LLC, 2006 WL 1400946, at *3 (W.D. Va.
May 19, 2006) (not reported) (Turk, J.) (following the rule for determining an LLC’s
citizenship set forth in Gen. Tech. Applications, Inc., 388 F.3d at 121).
“As such, ‘the citizenship of unincorporated associations must be traced through
however many layers of partners or members there may be.’” Markwest, 2016 WL

3

Case 2:20-cv-00010-JPB Document 8 Filed 04/30/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 186

6553591, at *2 (quoting Hunt v. Brooks Run Mining Co., LLC, 2013 WL 4829322, at *2
(S.D. W.Va. 2013) (citing Meyerson v. Harrah’s East Chicago Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617
(7th Cir. 2002))).
District courts have original jurisdiction in actions “where the matter in controversy
exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is
between . . . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). “[T]he statutory
formulation ‘between . . . citizens of different States’ . . . require[s] complete diversity
between all plaintiffs and all defendants.” Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89
(2005). In other words, “the citizenship of each plaintiff” must be diverse “from the
citizenship of each defendant.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996).
In this case, none of the defendants are citizens of West Virginia. Accordingly, there
is complete diversity between the plaintiffs and defendants, and this Court has diversity
jurisdiction.
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ Kristopher Currence and Trinity Currence’s
Motion to Remand [Doc. 6] is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record herein.
DATED: April 30, 2020.

4