Coleman v. Alcolac, Inc.

Decision Date06 June 1995
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. G-94-415.
Citation888 F. Supp. 1388
PartiesMarshall COLEMAN, et al. v. ALCOLAC, INC., et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Francis I. Spagnoletti, Spagnoletti & Assoc., Houston, TX, John Arthur Eaves, Jackson, MS, for plaintiffs Marshall Coleman, Michael Briceland, Georgina Brown, Patrecia Browning, Davy Chapman, Nan Corple, Jerry Dearman, Lavon Dempsey, Donald L. Drake, Lu Ann Faris, William Kirkland, J.W. Kuffel, Melinda Leduc, Stanley Livingston, David McGee, David Millward, Carole Ann Millward, Vernon Newman, John Short, James Silvester, Kippy Smith, James E. Taylor, Howard Turner, James McCourt, Victor Silvester, Michael Bates, Dean Lundholm, Jr.

Francis I. Spagnoletti, Spagnoletti & Assoc., Houston, TX, for plaintiffs Frederick Earl Fowler, Thomas L. Bradley, et al.

Gary Benjamin Pitts, Pitts & Collard, Houston, TX, for intervenor-plaintiff Herman Piceynski.

Gary Benjamin Pitts, Pitts & Collard, Houston, TX, Richard Lee Melancon, Schechter & Associates, Galveston, TX, for intervenor-plaintiff Ihsaan Abdul-Malik, et al.

Richard Lee Melancon, Schechter & Associates, Galveston, TX, for intervenor-plaintiff Kevin R. Allen.

Michael John Maloney, Fisher Gallagher & Lewis, Houston, TX, for intervenor-plaintiff Gary Zuspann.

F. Walter Conrad, Baker & Botts, Houston, TX, for defendants ABB Lummus Crest Inc., ABB Lummus Crest North America, Inc.

H. Ronald Welsh, Thad T. Dameris, Vinson & Elkins, Houston, TX, for defendants Rohne-Poulenc Inc., Alcolac, Inc., Alcolac Intern. Inc., Interchem, Inc.

J. Clifford Gunter, III, Bracewell & Patterson, Anthony Cole Duenner, Bracewell & Patterson, Houston, TX, for defendants Bechtel Group, Inc., Bechtel Corp.

Theodore F. Weiss, Jr., Houston, TX, Samuel M. Sipe, Jr., Steptoe & Johnson, Washington, DC, for defendant American Type Culture Collection, Inc.

G.P. Hardy, III, Hardy & Johns, Houston, TX, James Richard Watkins, Jr., Stephen Mark Strawn, Royston Rayzor Vickery & Williams, Galveston, TX, William R. Towns, Royston Rayzor Vickery & Williams, Houston, TX, Scott S. Partridge, George A. Frilot, III, George Frazier, James F. Shuey, Michael R. Phillips, Lemle & Kelleher, New Orleans, LA, for defendant Fisher Controls Intern., Inc.

Charles A. Watson, Dampier & Watson, Houston, TX, James Hugh Westmoreland, Houston, TX, for defendant Delta Steel Inc.

Murray J. Fogler, McDade & Fogler, Houston, TX, for defendant Translogic Corp. and movants Thyssen Inc. and U.S. Elevator Corp.

Richard Lee Melancon, Schechter & Associates, Galveston, TX, for movants Kevin R. Allen, Tamba G. Allen, Andrew A. Alston.

Gary Benjamin Pitts, Pitts & Collard, Houston, TX, Richard Lee Melancon, Schechter & Associates, Galveston, TX, for movants Ihsaan Abdul-Malik, Aatifa Abdul-Malik.

Michael John Maloney, Fisher Gallagher & Lewis, Houston, TX, James E. Wren, Robert L. McHaney, Jr., Waco, TX, for movant Gary Zuspann.

John Alexander Irvine, Thelen Marrin Johnson & Bridges, Houston, TX, for movants Budd Co., Thyssen Holding Corp., David Williams, Thomas Stuart.

Daniel David Hu, U.S. Attys. Office, Houston, TX, Robin D. Smith, Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for third-party defendant U.S.

Gary Benjamin Pitts, Pitts & Collard, Houston, TX, for movant Herman Piceynski.

Carlos Garza, Martin Micks Garza & Bunce, Galveston, TX, Joseph A. Katarincic, Katarincic & Salmon, Pittsburg, PA, for defendants Inc. Dresser Industries, M.W. Kellogg Co., M.W. Kellogg Holdings, Inc., Kellogg Iraq Ltd.

Peter E. Strand, Shoock, Hardy & Bacon, Kansas City, MO, Stephen Robert Lewis, Jr., Galveston, TX, for defendants Montedison Spa, Alfa Laval Inc., Tetra Laval Group, Alfa Laval AB, Chemap.

Louis B. Paine, Jr., Butler & Binion, Houston, TX, for defendant Beta First, Inc.

Carlos Garza, Martin Micks Garza & Bunce, Galveston, TX, for defendant Alliedsignal Inc.

Mitchell A. Toups, Weller Green McGown & Toups, Beaumont, TX, for defendant Sigma Chemie GmBH.

Charles A. Watson, Dampier & Watson, Houston, TX, for defendant Delta Steel Inc.

Stephen W. Lemmon, Bradley Wayne Cole, Sheinfeld Maley & Kay, Houston, TX, for defendant Cron Chemical Inc.

Stephen D. Susman, Susman & Godfrey, Houston, TX, for defendants Degussa Corp., Degussa AG.

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS

KENT, District Judge.

This is a class action of veterans of the Persian Gulf War who have brought suit under theories of negligence, strict liability, and product liability against Defendants Alcolac, Inc., a Georgia corporation ("Alcolac"), Alcolac International, Inc., a Maryland corporation ("Alcolac International"), Interchem, Inc., a New York corporation ("Interchem"), Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., a New York corporation ("Rhone-Poulenc"), Bechtel Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Bechtel"), Bechtel Corporation, a Nevada corporation ("Bechtel Corp."), American Type Culture Collection, Inc., a District of Columbia corporation ("ATCC"), Dresser Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Dresser"), M.W. Kellogg Co. ("Kellogg"), M.W. Kellogg Holdings, Inc. ("Kellogg Holdings"), Kellogg Iraq, Ltd. ("Kellogg Iraq"), all Delaware corporations, Beta First, Inc., a Texas corporation ("Beta First"), China North Industries Corp., a business enterprise of the Republic of China ("China North"), AlliedSignal, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("AlliedSignal"), Sigma-Aldrich Corp., a foreign corporation ("Sigma-Aldrich"), Sigma Chemie GmBH ("Sigma Chemie"), Preussag Handel GmBH ("Preussag Handel"), Preuss AG, ("Preuss"), Herberger-Bau GmBH ("Herberger-Bau"), Degussa AG ("Degussa"), Thyssen AG ("Thyssen"), all German companies, Alfa Laval Inc., a New Jersey corporation, Alfa Laval AB, a Swedish company, Tetra Laval Group, also a Swedish company, Cheamp, a Swiss company, Delta Steel, Inc., a Texas corporation ("Delta Steel"), and Degussa Corp., an Alabama corporation ("Degussa").

Plaintiffs consist of a potential class of up to 50,000-100,000 persons who served in Operation Desert Storm and who claim to have been injured by exposure to chemical and biological weapons ("CBWs") used during the Gulf War. Plaintiffs bring this suit against Defendants under allegations that Defendants were negligent in constructing, manufacturing, selling and/or installing the chemical components, or the equipment used to manufacture such chemicals, which were allegedly later incorporated into the CBWs Plaintiffs claim have caused their various illnesses following the Persian Gulf War.

This case was originally filed in the 23rd Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas and was later removed to this Court. After extensive pleadings on this matter, the Court allowed the parties to conduct limited discovery on jurisdictional issues involved in the case. As a result, the Court has before it now a variety of Motions to Dismiss that Defendants have filed based on this limited discovery. The Court has read the Motions and their Responses with great care, and after careful consideration of all the pleadings in this case, it is clear to the Court that it is completely lacking in subject matter jurisdiction over this case. As a result, the Court sua sponte decides that the above-captioned cause of action is hereby REMANDED to the 23rd Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, where it was originally filed, pursuant to the mandate of 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

I. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

29 U.S.C. § 1447(c) provides in relevant part that "if at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded" (emphasis added). It is well established that federal courts have a continuing duty to investigate whether jurisdiction is proper in a case, even if the parties themselves do not raise the issue. FDIC v. Loyd, 955 F.2d 316, 322 (5th Cir.1992); Scherer v. Laborers' Intern. Union of North America, 746 F.Supp. 73 (N.D.Fla.1988). Although a court may not sua sponte remand a case for procedural defects in removal after a lapse of the thirty-day limitations period imposed by § 1447(c), In re Shell Oil Co., 932 F.2d 1518, 1519 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied sub nom. Castillo v. Shell Oil Co., 502 U.S. 1049, 112 S.Ct. 914, 116 L.Ed.2d 814 (1992), 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) makes clear that the court must remand a case when it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Such a sua sponte remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is unreviewable on appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d);1 Loyd, 955 F.2d at 320 n. 4 ("Under new § 1447(c), remand orders based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction are clearly unreviewable."); Lemos v. Fencl, 828 F.2d 616 (9th Cir.1987).

It is an elementary and long-standing principle that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction that have "only the authority endowed by the Constitution and that conferred by Congress." Save the Bay, Inc. v. United States Army, 639 F.2d 1100, 1102 (5th Cir.1981). Under federal statute, federal courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $50,000 and is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This diversity statute requires complete diversity, in which none of the Plaintiffs may share the same state citizenship as one of the Defendants. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806); see also Whalen v. Carter, 954 F.2d 1087, 1094 (5th Cir.1992); Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396, 1398-99 (5th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 842, 95 S.Ct. 74, 42 L.Ed.2d 70 (1975). In this case, it is undisputed that diversity jurisdiction is absent, because several Plaintiffs and Defendants share the same state of citizenship.

In addition to diversity jurisdiction, Article III of the Constitution grants federal courts jurisdiction over "Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Jerez v. the Republic of Cuba
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • March 28, 2011
    ...waived pursuant to Section 1605(a)(5) as well as (a)(7). 36 (Hearing Transcript at 46, lines 18–20.) But see Coleman v. Alcolac, Inc., 888 F.Supp. 1388, 1401–02 (S.D.Tex.1995) (veterans of the Persian Gulf War who sued a Chinese company [deemed to be an agency/instrumentality of a foreign s......
  • Arnold v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Texas, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • April 30, 1997
    ...congressional intent to make the preempted state claims removable to federal court. See Aaron, 876 F.2d at 1161-64; Coleman v. Alcolac, Inc., 888 F.Supp. 1388 (S.D.Tex. 1995). The Court concludes that Blue Cross has not met the Aaron test for complete With respect to the first Aaron factor,......
  • Aquamar v. Del Monte Fresh Produce
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • June 30, 1999
    ...v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 493 n. 20, 103 S.Ct. 1962, 1971 n. 20, 76 L.Ed.2d 81 (1983); see also Coleman v. Alcolac, Inc., 888 F.Supp. 1388, 1400 (S.D.Tex.1995) ("The district court must address the issue of sovereign immunity, even if ... the foreign state has not even enter......
  • Greenpeace, Inc. (U.S.A.) v. State of France
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • October 4, 1996
    ...736 F.Supp. 1, 7 (D.D.C. 1990) (statute requires that "the entirety of the tort occur in the United States"); Coleman v. Alcolac, Inc., 888 F.Supp. 1388 (S.D.Tex.1995) (exception not applicable because alleged tort "did not occur wholly in this country"); Four Corners Helicopters, Inc. v. T......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT