Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA VARIOUS PLAINTIFFS v. VARIOUS DEFENDANTS ("Oil Field Cases") : : : : : : : : CONSOLIDATED UNDER MDL 875 CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-MC-103

M E M O R A N D U M EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J. DECEMBER 10, 2009

The instant motion to remand was filed on behalf of 444 plaintiffs ("plaintiffs") arguing that this Court must remand their actions to Mississippi state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants1 have filed timely responses.

For the reasons set forth herein, plaintiffs' motion to remand will be granted in part and denied in part.

I.

BACKGROUND These cases originated in Mississippi state court and

were removed to federal court by defendants Union Carbide and ConocoPhillips. The basis for removal was the allegedly

fraudulent joinder of two non-diverse defendants, Oilfield Service & Supply, Inc. ("Oilfield Service") and Mississippi Mud., Inc. ("Mississippi Mud"). In addition, twenty-five of these

Union Carbide Corp. filed a response in opposition to this motion to remand, which was joined by co-defendants ConocoPhillips and Montello, Inc. Oilfield Service & Supply, Inc. filed an individual response opposing the motion.

1

cases were removed under the theory that plaintiffs were entitled to assert federal jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ("OCSLA"). After removal, plaintiffs filed motions to remand, on the same grounds considered here, in the Southern District of Mississippi. After considering these motions, United States

District Judge Walter Gex remanded five of these cases to Mississippi state court. Before Judge Gex was able to rule on

the remaining motions, the cases were transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and consolidated as part of MDL-875 by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. The remand

motions remaining on the docket at the time of the consolidation with MDL-875 were denied by the MDL court without prejudice. (MDL-875 Administrative Order no. 11 at 3, doc no. 5936, 01-md875.) Plaintiffs have renewed their request for remand in the

444 cases and this renewed motions is now before the Court. Based on their procedural histories, these cases fall into three categories. Plaintiffs' motion to remand will be

considered under the facts of each category individually. a.) Category 1: This category consists of 354 plaintiffs whose cases were initiated in 2004. Originally filed

as a multi-plaintiff action, these plaintiffs had their cases severed into individual actions in Mississippi state court in 2006. After severance, each plaintiff filed an individual

2

amended complaint.

Defendants subsequently removed these cases (Defs.' Notice of

as a group to federal court on Sept. 26, 2008. Removal Ex. "D", doc. no. 58, 09-mc-103.)

The basis for removal

in these cases is the alleged fraudulent joinder of non-diverse parties Oilfield Service and Mississippi Mud. b.) Category II: This category consists of 65 cases which were filed in 2004, but were dismissed in Mississippi state court because they were filed in an improper venue. Plaintiffs

re-filed these cases on Sept. 28, 2007, and defendants removed these cases as a group to federal court on Sept. 26, 2008, within one year of the date of re-filing. "D", doc. no. 58, 09-mc-103.) (Defs.' Notice of Removal Ex.

As in Category I, the basis for

removal in these cases is the alleged fraudulent joinder of nondiverse parties Oilfield Service and Mississippi Mud. c.) Category III: This category consists of 25 cases The

which were removed based on federal question jurisdiction.

defendants aver that plaintiffs' claims are governed by OCSLA. As an alternative basis of federal jurisdiction, defendants also assert the fraudulent joinder of Oilfield Service and Mississippi Mud. After removal, the cases in all three categories were grouped by the Court for settlement purposes, pursuant to MDL-875

3

procedures.2

See MDL-875 Website, Settlement Conference After

Procedures, available at www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875.asp. attending several settlement conferences with defendants and

Magistrate Judge Strawbridge, plaintiffs filed the instant motion to remand. II. LEGAL STANDARD A district court considering a motion to remand "must focus on the plaintiff's complaint at the time the petition for removal was filed . . . [and] must assume as true all factual allegations of the complaint." (3d Cir. 2006). In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 218

The "party who urges jurisdiction on a federal

court bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists . . ."

Defendants, in their response, note that the Court has discouraged the filing of mass motions that apply to many plaintiffs in MDL-875. While this point is noted, plaintiffs affected by the instant motion have been referred to Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge as a group. Additionally, each of the plaintiffs in each of the four categories is identified by name in exhibit "A" of the motion to remand. Denying plaintiffs' motion on the grounds of MDL-875 policy would simply result in the filing of an identical motion in each of 444 cases. The defendants' argument takes the Court's policy too far in this instance. Previous opinions of the Court have discouraged motions attempting to change case-wide policy (i.e., mass dismissals for failure to comply with administrative orders or mass remands because the MDL is "not working"). See In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig., 614 F.Supp.2d 550, 554 (E.D. Pa. 2009); In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig., 254 F.R.D. 266, 268 (E.D. Pa. 2008). The instant motion is based on fairly specific facts with regard to a discrete set of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are represented by one law firm and fall neatly into three categories. The utility of dealing with these cases as one group outweighs the policy considerations of an overly strict "one-plaintiff, one-motion" program. 4

2

Boyer v. Snap-on Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir. 1990); see also Steel Valley Auth. v. Union Switch & Signal Div., 809 F.2d 1006, 1010 (3d Cir. 1987), cert. dismissed sub nom. American Standard v. Steel Valley Auth., 484 U.S. 1021 (1988) ("It remains the defendant's burden to show the existence and continuance of federal jurisdiction."). Because the removal of an action from

the state court to a federal forum implicates comity and federalism, it is said that "removal statutes are to be strictly construed against removal and all doubts should be resolved in favor of remand." Steel Valley Auth., 809 F.2d at 1010 (citing

Abels v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 770 F.2d 26, 29 (3d Cir. 1985)); accord Brown v. Francis, 75 F.3d 860, 865 (3d Cir. 1996); Boyer, 913 F.2d at 111. The practical application of this "all doubts" standard is to place upon a defendant "a heavy burden of persuasion" when

contending that a non-diverse party has been fraudulently joined. Boyer, 913 F.2d at 111. To prevail, the removing party must show

that there is "no reasonable basis in fact or colorable ground supporting the claim against the joined defendant, or no real intention in good faith to prosecute the action against the defendants . . . " In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d at 218.

Title 28 U.S.C.

Download 43977.pdf

Pennsylvania Law