Robertson v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
| Decision Date | 31 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 15–30920.,15–30920. |
| Citation | 814 F.3d 236 |
| Parties | Joseph ROBERTSON; Larry Hankton; Sharvonne Johnson; Tommie Jones; Wensanner King; et al, Plaintiffs–Appellees v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION; Mobil Exploration and Producing US, Incorporated; Joseph F. Grefer; Camille Grefer, Defendants–Appellants Chevron USA, Incorporated, individually and as the successor corporation of Gulf Oil Exploration; Production, Company; BP Exploration; Oil, Incorporated, and/or BP Products North America, Inc. and/or Amoco Oil Company; Conocophillips Company; Anadarko U.S. Offshore Corporation, formerly known as Kerr–McGee Oil and Gas Corporation, formerly known as Kerr–McGee Corporation; Marathon Oil Company; Sexton Oil ; Mineral Corporation; Shell Offshore, Incorporated; Shell Oil Company; Swepi, L.P., individually and as successor to Shell Western E & P, Inc.; Intracoastal Tubular Services, Incorporated, individually and as the successor corporation to Intracoastal Truck Linke, Inc., Intracoastal Pipe Repair and Supply, Co., and Intracoastal Terminal, Inc.; Alpha Technical Services, Incorporated; OFS, Incorporated, individually and as the successor corporation to Oil Field Sales and Service, Inc. ; Oilfield Testers, Incorporated, individually and as successor to The Coupling House, Inc.; Rathborne Companies, L.L.C.; Rathborne Land Company, L.L.C. ; Rathborne Properties, L.L.C.; Tubular Corporation; John Gandy, Incorporated; Exchange Oil; Gas Corporation; Amoco Production Company; Areo Oil and Gas Company; LB Foster Company; 51 Oil Company ; Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London and Certain London Market Insurance Companies; Rose Marie Grefer Haase; Henry Grefer; Riverstone Insurance, Limited, as successor in interest to certain business of Sphere Drake; incorrectly identified as Sphere Drake Insurance, Limited Insurance Limited, formerly known as Sphere Drake Insurance PLC ; Texaco, Incorporated, Incorrectly identified as predecessor to the Texas Company, Defendants–Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Darleen M. Jacobs, Esq., Michael Laborde (argued), Jacobs, Sarrat, Lovelace & Harris, Robert G. Harvey, Sr., New Orleans, LA, Paula Adams Ates, Esq., Ates Law Firm, A.P.L.C., Destrehan, LA, for Plaintiffs–Appellees.
Martin A. Stern (argued), Glen Marion Pilie, Esq., E. Paige Sensenbrenner, Esq., Valeria M. Sercovich, Ronald J. Sholes, David M. Stein, Roland Manil Vandenweghe, Jr., Raymond Peter Ward, Adams & Reese, L.L.P., New Orleans, LA, for Defendants–Appellants Exxon Mobil Corporation and Mobil Exploration and Producing US, Incorporated.
Eberhard Darrow Garrison, Kevin E. Huddell, Rose A. Murray, Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for Defendants–Appellants Joseph F. Grefer and Camille Grefer.
Michael Raudon Phillips, Esq., Brett Patrick Fenasci, Shannon A. Shelton, for Defendants–Appellees Chevron USA, Incorporated, individually and as the successor corporation of Gulf Oil Exploration & Production, Company and Texaco, Incorporated, Incorrectly identified as predecessor to the Texas Company.
Michael P. Cash, Esq., Wade Thomas Howard, Esq., Liskow & Lewis, Houston, TX, Lauren Raili Bridges, Liskow & Lewis, P.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for Defendant–Appellee BP Exploration & Oil, Incorporated, and/or BP Products North America, Inc. and/or Amoco Oil Company and Amoco Production Company.
Mark Edward Best, Esq., Michele Hale DeShazo, Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Janika D. Polk, Esq., Skylar Barbosa Rudin, Milele N. St. Julien, Senior Counsel, Kuchler, Polk, Schell, Weiner & Richeson, L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for Defendants–Appellees Conocophillips Company, Shell Offshore, Incorporated, Shell Oil Company and Swepi, L.P., individually and as successor to Shell Western E & P, Inc.
Mary S. Johnson, Esq., Jill Thompson Losch, Johnson Gray McNamara, L.L.C., Mandeville, LA, Nichole Mart Gray, Chadwick James Mollere, Johnson Gray McNamara, L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for Defendant–Appellee Anadarko U.S. Offshore Corporation, formerly known as Kerr–McGee Oil and Gas Corporation, formerly known as Kerr–McGee Corporation.
Richard Stuart Pabst, Esq., Tyler Ann Moore Kostal, Esq., Julie Parelman Silbert, Kean Miller, L.L.P., New Orleans, LA, for Defendant–Appellee Marathon Oil Company.
Thomas E. Balhoff, Carlton Jones, III, Roedel, Parsons, Koch, Blache, Balhoff & McCollister, A.L.C., Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant–Appellee Intracoastal Tubular Services, Incorporated, individually and as the successor corporation to Intracoastal Truck Linke, Inc., Intracoastal Pipe Repair and Supply, Co., and Intracoastal Terminal, Inc.
John William Hite, III, Peyton C. Lambert, Salley, Hite, Mercer & Resor, L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for Defendants–Appellees Rathborne Companies, L.L.C., Rathborne Land Company, L.L.C. and Rathborne Properties, L.L.C.
Angie Arceneaux Akers, Jay M. Lonero, Thomas H. Peyton, Larzelere Picou Wells Simpson Lonero, L.L.C., Metairie, LA, for Defendant–Appellee Riverstone Insurance, Limited, as successor in interest to certain business of Sphere Drake; incorrectly identified as Sphere Drake Insurance, Limited Insurance Limited, formerly known as Sphere Drake Insurance, P.L.C.
Before GRAVES, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON
, Circuit Judge:
This lawsuit alleging personal and property damages stemming from oil pipe-cleaning operations was filed in Louisiana state court and removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) (CAFA)
. The district court allowed jurisdictional discovery and then ordered the case remanded to state court on the ground that Defendants had not met their burden of showing that at least one plaintiff satisfies the individual amount-in-controversy requirement that CAFA applies to so-called "mass actions." Holding that Defendants did make that showing, we reverse.
Plaintiffs are 189 natural persons who live, work, or own real property in a certain part of Harvey, Louisiana, or formerly did so. They allege that the nearby cleaning of pipes used in the oil industry produced harmful radioactive material that injured their health and property. Defendants are several oil companies, contractors that cleaned pipes for those oil companies, and the owners of property on which the pipe cleaning took place.
Plaintiffs contend that the relevant pipe-cleaning operations began in 1958 and operated continuously through 1992. According to Plaintiffs, the dirty pipes were covered with "pipe scale" that accumulates during drilling and production operations and contains radioactive and otherwise hazardous compounds known to present serious health risks. When the pipe-contractor defendants removed that pipe scale, Plaintiffs submit, they produced radioactive dust that became airborne and settled onto the Plaintiffs' properties, where some of it was absorbed into the ground or surface water. Plaintiffs allege that some of this material remains on their property despite remediation efforts, and will continue to emit harmful radiation for thousands of years. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants long knew or should have known of these hazards, but that Plaintiffs were not on notice of them until 2001, when landowner-defendants the Grefers posted a warning sign. Plaintiffs seek compensation for a wide variety of harms—including physical injuries, contracted diseases, medical expenses, lost wages, emotional distress, and property damage and diminution of value—as well as punitive damages and restitution of part of a nine-figure verdict awarded to the Grefers in a previous lawsuit.
After Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, Defendants removed it to federal court, claiming that it is a removable "mass action" under CAFA. Plaintiffs then filed a motion to remand, arguing that Defendants had not met their burden of proving CAFA's basic jurisdictional requirements and that, in the alternative, three exclusions or exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction applied. The district court granted that motion, concluding that neither Plaintiffs' complaint nor Defendants' evidence shows that any plaintiff's claim satisfies CAFA's $75,000 individual amount-in-controversy requirement. We granted Defendants' petition for permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1453
.1
This court reviews de novo a district court's order remanding to state court a lawsuit that had been removed under CAFA. Admiral Ins. Co. v. Abshire, 574 F.3d 267, 272 (5th Cir.2009)
; see also Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 722 (5th Cir.2002).
CAFA expanded federal district courts' original jurisdiction to include " ‘class actions' and ‘mass actions' " in which there is minimal diversity and the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 736, 739–40, 187 L.Ed.2d 654 (2014)
. A mass action—the category that occupies us here—is "any civil action ... in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs' claims involve common questions of law or fact, except that jurisdiction shall exist only over those plaintiffs whose claims in a mass action satisfy the jurisdictional amount requirements under subsection (a)." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(i). That subsection (a), in turn, limits diversity jurisdiction to "civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Because the party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction, we have held that a putative mass action removed under CAFA must be remanded if the defendants cannot establish that (1) the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million and (2) at least one plaintiff's claim satisfies the $75,000 individual amount in controversy. Hood ex rel. Mississippi v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 737 F.3d 78, 85–86 (5th Cir.2013).2 The district court held that Defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Theriot v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co.
...Manguno , 276 F.3d at 723 (citing Simon v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 193 F.3d 848, 850 (5th Cir. 1999) ); accord Robertson v. Exxon Mobil Corp. , 814 F.3d 236, 240 (5th Cir. 2015) ; Garcia v. Koch Oil Co. of Tex. Inc. , 351 F.3d 636, 639 (5th Cir. 2003) ; Grant v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co. L......
-
Safranek v. Nat'l Gen. Ins. Co.
...proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied."90 In Robertson v. Exxon Mobil Corp., the Fifth Circuit acknowledged Dart Cherokee's preponderance of the evidence standard above, and further held that "A remo......
-
Safranek v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co.
...the court decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied."90 In Robertson v. Exxon Mobil Corp. , the Fifth Circuit acknowledged Dart Cherokee ’s preponderance of the evidence standard above, and further held that "A removing def......
-
Wakefield v. Allstate Vehicle & Prop. Ins. Co.
...276 F.3d at 723 (citing Simon v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 193 F.3d 848, 850 (5th Cir. 1999)); accord Robertson v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 814 F.3d 236, 240 (5th Cir. 2015); Garcia v. Koch Oil Co. of Tex. Inc., 351 F.3d 636, 639 (5th Cir. 2003); Grant v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co. L.P., 309 F.3d 86......