Wine et al v. Stone Energy Corporation

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO FILE A SURREPLYAND DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND: Denying 7 Motion to Remand; Granting 18 Motion for Leave to File Surreply; Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr on 8/28/18. (soa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
JOSHUA R. WINE and
AUBREIANNA M. WINE,
his wife,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. 5:18CV98
(STAMP)

STATE ENERGY CORPORATION,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO FILE A SURREPLY
AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND
This is a personal injury case arising from a flash fire at a
natural gas well pad located in New Martinsville, Wetzel County,
West Virginia.
Circuit

Court

The plaintiffs filed this civil action in the
of

Wetzel

County,

West

Virginia.

ECF

No.

1.

Defendant Stone Energy Corporation (“Stone”) removed the case to
this Court citing diversity jurisdiction. Id. The plaintiffs then
filed a motion to remand.

ECF No. 7.

The defendant filed a

response in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion to remand.
No. 13.
response.

ECF

The plaintiffs then filed a reply to the defendant’s
ECF No. 15.

In response, the defendant filed a motion

for leave to file a surreply.

ECF No. 18.

The plaintiffs then

filed a response in opposition to defendant’s motion for leave to
file a surreply.
defendant’s

ECF No. 22.

motion

to

file

For the reasons set forth below,
a

surreply

is

granted

plaintiffs’ motion to remand (ECF No. 7) is denied.

and

the

I.

Background

Plaintiff Joshua R. Wine (“Mr. Wine”) was employed by Island
Operating Company and was working on behalf of his employer at the
Howell Pad.

ECF No. 1-2 at 3.

Defendant Stone Energy Corporation

(“Stone”) allegedly owned and operated the Howell Pad where Mr.
Wine allegedly sustained injuries from a flash fire.

ECF No. 1

at 2. Plaintiff Aubreianna Wine (“Mrs. Wine”) asserts a derivative
claim for the loss of consortium and services of her husband.

ECF

No. 1-1 at 8.
After defendant’s notice of and removal to this Court, the
plaintiffs filed a motion to remand (ECF No. 7) arguing that the
defendant

failed

to

satisfy

its

burden

of

proving

by

a

preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs. The plaintiffs
assert that the defendant, in its notice of removal, merely made
conclusory allegations that the plaintiffs’ claims exceed the
requisite amount, and that the threat of punitive damages does not
give rise to federal jurisdiction.

ECF Nos. 7 at 1 and 8 at 4-5.

After, the defendant filed a response to the plaintiffs’ motion to
remand arguing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00
exclusive

of

interest

and

costs

because

Mr.

Wine

incurred

$82,715.00 in medical bills arising from the flash fire and because
a “common sense” reading of the complaint confirms that the amount
in controversy has been met.

ECF No. 13 at 2, 5 (citing Mullins v.

2

Harry’s Mobile Homes, 861 F. Supp. 22, 24 (S.D. W. Va. 1994)).

The

plaintiffs filed a reply to the defendant’s response arguing that
the defendant’s response is improperly supported by an affidavit
(ECF No. 13-1 at 1) which is allegedly based upon information
improperly obtained by defendant concerning Mr. Wine’s purportedly
private

and

information.

confidential

medical

ECF No. 15 at 1.

and

workers’

compensation

The defendant then filed a motion

for leave to file a surreply to address allegations of improper
obtainment of confidential information and to request this Court
acknowledge that neither defendant Stone, nor its counsel, have
requested, obtained, reviewed, or accessed Mr. Wine’s medical
records

and

information.

that

the

information

cited

was

not

confidential

ECF No. 18-1 at 1-2.
II.

Applicable Law

A defendant may remove a case from state court to a federal
court with original jurisdiction.

28 U.S.C. § 1441.

Under 28

U.S.C. § 1332(a), district courts have original jurisdiction where
the dispute is between citizens of different states and the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.

The parties must be completely

diverse, meaning that “the citizenship of each plaintiff must be
different from the citizenship of each defendant.”
Appalachian

Power

Co.,

739

F.3d

163,

170

(4th

Hoschar v.
Cir.

2014).

Diversity is “assessed at the time the action is filed.” FreeportMcMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991).

3

The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing
federal jurisdiction.
LLC,

460

F.3d

challenged,

576,

the

See In re Blackwater Security Consulting,
583

(4th

defendant

Cir.

must

preponderance of the evidence.

2006).

establish

When

removal

jurisdiction

by

is
a

Strawn v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 530

F.3d 293, 297-98 (4th Cir. 2008).

Further, this Court must

strictly construe its removal jurisdiction and remand if federal
jurisdiction is doubtful.
422, 425 (4th Cir. 1999).
leave

common

controversy.

sense

Hartley v. CSX Transp., Inc., 187 F.3d
However, courts are not required “to

behind”

when

determining

the

amount

in

Mullens v. Harry’s Mobile Homes, 861 F. Supp. 22, 24

(S.D. W. Va. 1994). When the amount in controversy is not apparent
on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint, the court must attempt to
ascertain the amount in controversy by considering the plaintiff’s
cause of action as alleged, the notice of removal, and any other
relevant materials in the record at the time of removal.

14C

Charles Allen Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 3725.1 (4th ed. 2013). Typically, removal jurisdiction
should be evaluated based solely on the filings available when the
notice of removal was filed.

Tamburin v. Hawkins, No. 5:12CV79,

2013 WL 588739, *1 (N.D. W. Va. Feb. 13, 2013) (citing Chase v.
Shop ‘N Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., 110 F.3d 424, 428 (7th Cir.
1997)).

However, it may be proper for the court to consider other

evidence in the record where the amount in controversy is not

4

readily ascertainable from the pleadings.

See Wright & Miller,

supra § 3725.1; Mullins, 861 F. Supp. at 23.
III.

Discussion

There is no dispute in this civil action that complete
diversity exists.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs claim past

and future medical bills, personal, psychological, and emotional
damage and injuries, lost wages, earning capacity, and benefits,
lost household services and future lost household services, past
and future physical pain and suffering, past and future mental
anguish and suffering, past and future loss of capacity to enjoy
life and engage in normal activities, and past and future annoyance
and inconvenience, humiliation, embarrassment, and aggravation.
See ECF No. 1-1 at 7.

The plaintiffs also seek punitive damages.

ECF No. 1-1 at 6-7; see Asbury-Castro v. GlaxoSmithKline, Inc., 352
F. Supp. 2d 729, 732 (N.D. W. Va. 2005) (noting that “[u]nder West
Virginia law, a good faith claim for punitive damages may augment
compensatory damages in determining the amount in controversy
unless . . . [it is] legal[ly] certain[] that [the] plaintiff
cannot recover punitive damages in the action”).
Defendant Stone argues that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000.00 because Mr. Wine incurred $82,715.00 in medical bills
arising from the flash fire that is the subject of this civil
action.

ECF No. 13 at 2.

In addition, defendant asserts that Mr.

Wine received $38,578.00 in indemnity payments for lost wages and

5

disability following the incident.

ECF No. 13 at 3.

In support,

defendant Stone submitted as evidence the Declaration of Lance A.
Leblanc, a safety manager employed by Island Operating Company,
plaintiff Joshua Wine’s employer.

ECF No. 13-1.

Plaintiffs raise an argument in their reply that the defendant
should not be permitted to use the information contained within the
declaration (ECF No. 13-1) in order to satisfy their burden of
proving removal jurisdiction on the basis that it was improperly
obtained.

Plaintiffs argue that the defendant’s response is

improperly

supported

by

plaintiff

Joshua

Wine’s

private

and

confidential medical and workers’ compensation information in that
the declaration of Island Operating Company’s safety manager Lance
A. Leblanc’s (ECF No. 13-1) is based upon information that “is
confidential and private and was derived from protected sources and
documents.”

ECF 15 at 1,

3.

As such, the plaintiffs argue that

the defendant should not be rewarded for its conduct by having this
evidence considered and contend that, without this evidence, the
defendant has no evidence to show that the amount in controversy
has been met.

ECF No. 15 at 5-6.

This Court finds that at this time, the issue of whether or
not defendant has engaged in any alleged wrongdoing does not
concern the instant issue of jurisdiction before this Court.

This

Court notes that the defendant did not attach the specific medical
bills or medical records, but that the plaintiffs take issue with

6

the information referenced within the declaration itself which were
general statements regarding the total cost of the plaintiff’s
hospitalization and/or medical treatment.

Further, the defendant

points out that the plaintiffs do not challenge the amounts cited,
which are $82,715.00 in medical bills, $39,578.00 in indemnity
benefits, and that the plaintiff’s earned wages in 2016 were
$38,371.65 at the time of the fire that is subject of this civil
action in October 2016.

ECF No. 18-1 at 2, ECF No. 13-1.

Without

deciding whether or not there is an actual issue of improperly
obtaining confidential information by the defendant, or improperly
turning over confidential information by the employer, this Court
finds that such an issue is not determinative of the amount in
controversy for jurisdictional purposes which is the basis of the
instant motion. While there may in fact be some appropriate remedy
to address the defendant’s alleged improper conduct, such remedy
does not present itself in this Court’s consideration of the
plaintiffs’ instant motion to remand. Narrowing in on the specific
issue before this Court, this Court finds that plaintiffs have
failed to offer any argument contrary to the evidence presented in
the defendant’s affidavit other than raising the issue of alleged
improper conduct in obtaining such information. Accordingly, since
the plaintiffs have not refuted the defendant’s evidence in support
of removal and diversity jurisdiction, this Court finds that the
defendant has satisfied its burden of proving by preponderance of

7

the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00,
exclusive of interest and costs.
IV.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated, this Court finds that it has subject
matter jurisdiction in this civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motion to remand (ECF No. 7) is DENIED
and the defendant’s motion for leave to file a surreply (ECF No.
18) 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:

August 28, 2018

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

8