Beck et al v. Consol Energy, Inc.

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 9 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND. This matter is hereby REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. on 6/24/2014. (copy to counsel of record via CM/ECF; copy to Circuit Clerk via U.S. Mail) (nmm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
GRIFFITH J. BECK and
TRACY WHITESIDE,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. 5:14CV47
(STAMP)

CONSOL ENERGY, INC.
Defendant and
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN PENNINGTON,
Third-Party Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND
I.

Background

Plaintiffs, Griffith J. Beck (“Beck”) and his wife Tracy
Whiteside commenced this civil action by filing a complaint in the
Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia. The plaintiffs allege
that while working as an employee of the defendant, CONSOL Energy,
Inc. (“CONSOL”), Beck was physically assaulted at his place of
employment located at Enlow Fork Mine in Pennsylvania.

On the day

of the alleged incident, several of Beck’s coworkers, acting under
the supervision of foreman, John Pennington, wrestled the plaintiff
to the ground and otherwise touched him in an unwanted manner.

As

a result of the incident, Beck allegedly suffered bodily injury and
in his complaint requests damages to cover future medical bills.

The plaintiffs additionally make a claim for loss of spousal
consortium and ask for punitive damages.

Finally, the plaintiffs

allege that as a consequence of his injuries, Beck has been unable
to return to work resulting in lost wages. Although the plaintiffs
do not specify the amount of damages sought, the defendant, in its
amended notice of removal, alleges lost wages totaled $36,663.84.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and 28 U.S.C. § 1441, the
defendant, removed the action to this Court on April 10, 2014, and
thereafter, the defendant filed an amended notice of removal.

The

plaintiffs then filed a motion to remand, which is now fully
briefed and ripe for review.

For the reasons stated below, this

Court grants the plaintiffs’ motion to remand.
II.

Applicable Law

All defendants have a statutory right to remove any civil
action brought in state court over which “the district courts of
the United States have original jurisdiction . . . .”

28 U.S.C.

§ 1441(a). Federal courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$75,000.00,

exclusive

of

interest

citizens of different states.”

and

costs,

and

is

between

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

When the plaintiff challenges whether removal is appropriate,
the defendant carries the burden of demonstrating the court’s
jurisdiction over the matter.
293, 296 (4th Cir. 2008).

Strawn v. AT&T Mobility, 530 F.3d
Federalism concerns compel federal

2

courts to strictly construe removal jurisdiction.

Md. Stadium

Auth. v. Ellerbe Becket Inc., 407 F.3d 255, 260 (4th Cir. 2005).
Thus, if federal jurisdiction is doubtful, a remand to state court
is necessary. Id.

Although the removal statute is to be construed

strictly against removal, the court is not required “to leave its
common sense behind” when determining the amount in controversy.
Mullins v. Harry’s Mobile Homes, Inc., 861 F. Supp. 22, 24 (S.D. W.
Va. 1994).

When no specific amount of damages is set forth in the

complaint, the defendant must prove, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the claim meets the requisite jurisdictional amount.
Bartnikowski v. NVR, Inc., 307 F. App’x 730, 734 (4th Cir. 2009).
In such circumstances, the court may consider the entire record
before it and may conduct its own independent inquiry to determine
whether the amount in controversy satisfies the jurisdictional
minimum.

Mullins, 861 F. Supp. 22, 23.
III.

Discussion

The plaintiffs do not contest that complete diversity exists
between the parties in this action.

The defendant is a Delaware

corporation and maintains its corporate headquarters in Washington
County, Pennsylvania.

The plaintiffs are residents of Belmont

County, Ohio. Instead, the plaintiffs challenge whether the amount
in

controversy

is

sufficient

to

reach

the

jurisdictional

prerequisite of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.

3

The plaintiffs’ complaint does not specify the amount of
monetary relief sought.

As of the date the defendant filed the

amended notice of removal, the defendant calculated the value of
lost

wages

to

be

$36,663.84.

The

plaintiffs

dispute

this

assertion, arguing that there may be disability payments or other
types of wage replacement that will reduce the amount of wages due.
Regardless, for purposes of determining the amount in controversy,
this Court relies upon this figure as a starting point.

Although

this amount is not dispositive of the value of this civil action
because it represents only the amount of the disputed lost wages,
it does provide some indication of the amount of damages involved,
which at this time is shown to be far below the jurisdictional
minimum.
First, the defendant notes that the amount of lost wages
increases with each passing day and suggests that the potential
lost wage claim alone will eventually satisfy the amount in
controversy requirement.
long-standing

principle

This argument fails because it is a
that

the

amount

in

determined at the time the complaint was filed.

controversy

is

See St. Paul

Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938); see also
Horton v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 367 U.S. 348 (1961); Chase v.
Shop’N Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., 110 F.3d 424, 427 (7th Cir.
1997).

Even using the defendant’s figure of $36,663.84, this

4

number

is

not

sufficient

to

satisfy

the

required

amount

in

controversy.
Second, the defendant argues that the amount in controversy
exceeds the jurisdictional minimum because the plaintiffs seek a
variety of damages beyond lost wages. Specifically, the plaintiffs
seek medical bills, punitive damages, and future damages for
humiliation,
distress.

degradation,

embarrassment,

and

severe

emotional

The defendant contends that the lost wages, combined

with the plaintiffs’ other alleged damages, are “sufficient in and
of themselves” for this Court to determine that the amount in
controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum.
After careful consideration of the briefs filed in support and
in opposition of the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, this Court finds
that the defendant has not met its burden of proof with regard to
the amount in controversy. The defendant’s removal cannot be based
on speculation.

See Varela v. Wal-Mart Stores, East, Inc., 86 F.

Supp. 2d 1109, 1112 (D.N.M. 2000).

Rather, it must be based on

facts as they existed at the time of removal.

Id.

Further, the

mere “threat” of punitive damages, without more, does not give rise
to federal jurisdiction. Landmark Corp. v. Apogee Coal Co., 945 F.
Supp. 932, 938 (S.D. W. Va. 1996). Here, the defendant has offered
no

competent

proof

or

tangible

evidence

that

the

amount

in

controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interests and costs.
The only number the defendant provides is for lost wages, which

5

total only $36,663.84.

Beyond this, the defendant argues the

amount in controversy requirement is satisfied simply because the
plaintiffs

ask

for

a

variety

of

damages.

However,

“a

mere

assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 is
insufficient to meet this burden.”

White v. Chase Bank USA, NA,

No. 2:08-1370, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76150, at *2 (S.D. W. Va. Aug.
26, 2009).

Considering all of the evidence, this Court finds that

the defendant has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
the plaintiffs will recover damages in excess of the jurisdictional
minimum.

Therefore, the plaintiffs’ motion to remand must be

granted.
IV.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the plaintiffs’ motion to remand
(ECF No. 9) is hereby GRANTED.

This matter is hereby REMANDED to

the Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this memorandum
opinion and order to counsel of record herein and to the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia.
DATED:

June 24, 2014

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

6