Cullum v. Arkla, Inc., Civ. No. B-C-90-44.
Decision Date | 07 August 1992 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. B-C-90-44. |
Citation | 797 F. Supp. 725 |
Parties | Bill CULLUM, Darnell Cullum, Scott Kallsnick, and Cynthia Kallsnick, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ARKLA, INC., Arkla Exploration Company, Arkoma Production Company, Jerrell Jones, Michael V. McCoy, Billy Harrell, Sheffield Nelson, Mac McLarty, Arkansas Public Service Commission, Sam I. Bratton, Jr., Patricia S. Qualls, Julius D. Kearney, and Jerrell Clark, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
Jerry C. Post, Murphy, Post, Thompson, Arnold & Skinner, Batesville, Ark., Harvey L. Bell, Stephen P. Bilheimer, Bell, Bilheimer & Associates, P.A., Little Rock, Ark., J. Michael Rediker, Thomas L. Krebs, Ritchie & Rediker, Birmingham, Ala., Kenneth F. McCallion, James W. Johnson, Goodkind, Labaton & Rudoff, New York City, John M. Belew, Batesville, Ark., for plaintiffs.
N.M. Norton, Jr., Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, Little Rock, Ark., Joseph L. McEntee, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Chicago, Ill., Stephen C. Engstrom, Wilson, Engstrom, Corum & Dudley, Samuel A. Perroni, Perroni, Rauls & Looney, P.A., Marcia Barnes, Deborah Ruth Stallings, Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A., Little Rock, Ark., Richard W. Cass, Gary D. Wilson, Arthur F. Matthews, Roger W. Yoerges, Andrew B. Weissman, James Lee Buck, II, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, D.C., Theodore C. Skokos, Skokos, Coleman & Rainwater, P.A., Little Rock, Ark., for defendants.
This action presents, in essence, the question whether a private lawsuit under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) (1984), and other federal statutory provisions identified hereinafter, may be instituted against Arkla, Inc., Arkla Exploration Company, Arkoma Production Company, Jerrell Jones, Michael V. McCoy, Billy Harrell, Sheffield Nelson, Mac McLarty, Arkansas Public Service Commission (PSC), Commissioner Sam I. Bratton, Jr., Commissioner Patricia S. Qualls, Commissioner Julius D. Kearney, and PSC Executive Director Jerrell Clark (hereinafter with the PSC and Commissioners as the "Public Servant Group") to recover alleged excessive charges for natural gas imposed on the consuming public as a result of fraudulent conduct and material misrepresentations during rate setting proceedings.
Plaintiffs originally filed suit on June 5, 1990, and filed their first amended complaint on June 15, 1990, prior to the filing of any responsive pleadings. The defendants filed motions to dismiss to which plaintiffs filed a consolidated response on August 31, 1990. By order filed on September 28, 1990, the Court granted plaintiffs' September 6, 1990 motion to amend and supplement their complaint.
The second amended complaint was filed on October 9, 1990. Motions to dismiss, responses, replies and supplements were filed with the last filing on May 23, 1991. By order filed on July 3, 1991, all pending motions were referred to Magistrate Judge H. David Young for recommended disposition. On October 8, 1991, Magistrate Judge Young recommended that the case be dismissed. Plaintiffs filed objections on October 21st supported by the affidavit of Bernard Persky. By order filed on October 29th, the Court set oral argument on the recommended disposition and objections for November 15th. Thereafter, defendants filed their responses to the objections. By order filed on November 12th, the Court cancelled oral argument and found that plaintiffs' alternative request to file an amended complaint should be granted to permit plaintiffs to address the alleged deficiencies and to incorporate the matters raised by the affidavit.
The third amended complaint was filed on December 2nd. Defendants filed motions to dismiss on January 27th and plaintiffs responded on March 16th. Replies were filed by all defendants on April 6th. On May 28th and July 6th, Nelson moved for submission of additional authority. Nelson's motions are granted.
Although the third amended complaint does provide more details than the second amended complaint, for purposes of this order, the Court adopts the following factual summary from the October 8th findings:
Like the second amended complaint, the first four claims of the third amended complaint are based upon alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962, which is part of RICO, and the fifth claim is based upon an alleged violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The sixth claim, which was contained in the original and first amended complaint, but omitted in the second amended complaint, alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985.1 The seventh claim is for declaratory judgment while the remaining five claims are brought pursuant to state law.
Magistrate Judge Young, in a thorough analysis, found that the second amended complaint did not set forth facts which would establish the required pattern of racketeering activity and recommended that the RICO claims be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. He further found that plaintiffs had failed to describe a protectable property right or a violation of federal statutes which would have permitted a claim under § 1983. He next found that even if there were a proper claim based upon procedural due process, the Burford abstention doctrine would be applicable.2 Finally, without a basis for federal jurisdiction, it was recommended that the pendent state claims be dismissed.
Subsequent to the filing of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Delgado v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.
-
Prentiss v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...WL 445730, *3 n. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 954 F.2d 485, 495 (8th Cir.1992); Cullum v. Arkla, Inc., 797 F.Supp. 725, 729 (E.D.Ark. 1992). 6. Plaintiffs essentially contend the North Carolina Insurance Department is not involved in this controversy because ......
-
Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield Customer Litigation, In re
...affd. without opin., 998 F.2d 1009 [4th Cir.], cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 553, 126 L.Ed.2d 454 [1993]; Cullum v. Arkla, Inc., 797 F.Supp. 725 [E.D.Ark.1992], affd. without opin., 994 F.2d 842 [8th Cir.1993]; Hilling v. Northern States Power Co., No. 3-90 CIV 418, 1990 WL 597044 ......
-
Wegoland Ltd. v. NYNEX Corp.
...without opinion, 998 F.2d 1009 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 553, 126 L.Ed.2d 454 (1993); Cullum v. Arkla, Inc., 797 F.Supp. 725, 728-29 (E.D.Ark.1992), aff'd without opinion, 994 F.2d 842 (8th Cir.1993); Hilling v. Northern States Power Co., No. 3-90 CIV 418, 1990 WL 5......
-
Arkansas. Practice Text
...200. Id. § 23-4-710(a); see also ARK. CONST. art. XVII, § 6. 201. 907 S.W.2d 741, 742 (Ark. 1995); see also Cullum v. Arkla, Inc., 797 F. Supp. 725 (E.D. Ark. 1992) (holding that federal RICO claims were barred by the filed rate doctrine), aff’d , 994 F.2d 842 (8th Cir. 1993). 202. The PSC ......
-
Arkansas
...ARK. CODE ANN. § 23-4-710(a); see also ARK. CONST. art. XVII, § 6. 201. 907 S.W.2d 741, 742 (Ark. 1995); see also Cullum v. Arkla, Inc., 797 F. Supp. 725 (E.D. Ark. 1992) (holding that federal RICO claims were barred by the filed rate doctrine), aff’d , 994 F.2d 842 (8th Cir. 1993). 202. Th......
-
General Exemptions and Immunities
...v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., 805 F. Supp. 1277, 1295 (D.S.C. 1992), aff’d , 998 F.2d 1009 (4th Cir. 1993); Cullum v. Arkla, Inc., 797 F. Supp. 725, 728-29 (E.D. Ark. 1992), aff’d , 994 F.2d 842 (8th Cir. 1993). 1450 ANTITRUST LAW DEVELOPMENTS (NINTH) The courts of appeals are divided,......
-
Table of Cases
...(D. Conn. 1981), 144 Culbro Corp.; United States v., 436 F. Supp. 746 (S.D.N.Y. 1977), 388, 433, 434, 436, 773 Cullum v. Arkla, Inc., 797 F. Supp. 725 (E.D. Ark. 1992), aff ’ d, 994 F.2d 842 (8th Cir. 1993), 1449 Culver v. City of Milwaukee, 277 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2002), 908 Cumberland Truc......