Jones v. Consol. Coal Co.

• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia
• Writing for the Court: FREDERICK P. STAMP
• Decision Date: 19 March 2014
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 1:13CV11 (STAMP)
• Citation: Jones v. Consol. Coal Co., Civil Action No. 1:13CV11 (STAMP) (N.D. W.Va. Mar 19, 2014)
• Parties: JAMES D. JONES, II, TIMOTHY E. JONES and JANET L. JONES, Plaintiffs, v. CONSOLIDATED COAL COMPANY, d/b/a CONSOL ENERGY, a Delaware for profit corporation authorized to do business in West Virginia, Defendant.

JAMES D. JONES, II, TIMOTHY E. JONES and JANET L. JONES, Plaintiffs, v. CONSOLIDATED COAL COMPANY, d/b/a CONSOL ENERGY, a Delawarefor profit corporation authorized to do business in West Virginia, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:13CV11 (STAMP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

DATED: March 19, 2014

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A JURY VIEW

I. Procedural History

This case was removed to this Court from the Circuit Court of Marion County, West Virginia. There were originally two defendants, however, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of Consol Energy, Inc.; thus, Consolidation Coal Company is the only remaining defendant. The plaintiffs are seeking a declaratory judgment that they are the owners of a 0.25 acre parcel of land in Marion County, West Virginia, and seek compensatory damages for willful trespass for the defendant's removal of coal underlying the parcel and for the defendant's continued use of the subsurface. The defendant filed an answer and counterclaim to the plaintiffs' complaint. In its counterclaim, the defendant claims that it had rightful possession of the property pursuant to adverse possession. Thus, the defendant requests that this Court find that it isentitled to a declaratory judgment that title to the property was acquired through adverse possession and quiet title to the 0.25 acre parcel of land.

The defendant requested a jury view of the subject property in the joint pretrial order submitted to this Court on March 12, 2014. The plaintiffs indicated in that order that they objected to the defendant's request. This Court then held a pretrial conference on March 17, 2014 at which this Court heard further argument from the parties regarding the jury view.

II. Discussion

The defendant has requested that this Court allow a jury view of the subject property. The defendant, at the pretrial conference, indicated that the subject property is at a location 40 minutes from the United States Bankruptcy Court in Clarksburg, West Virginia, where the trial in this action will be held. The defendant further indicated that the jury view is necessary because the photographs that have been taken of the subject property do not accurately depict the size of the property, a creek that runs through the property, and the proximity of a garage on the property to the creek. The plaintiffs objected to this request due to the difficulty of fulfilling this request because of the location of the property and the costs involved in allowing such a view.

Although the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has not so held, several circuits have held and theprevailing view is that, "a federal court, exercising its inherent powers, may allow a jury in either a civil or a criminal case to view places or objects outside the courtroom." Clemente v. Carnicon-Puerto Rico Management Assocs., L.C., 52 F.3d 383, 385 (1st Cir. 1995), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Gray, 199 F.3d 547, 550 (1st Cir. 1999); see also Kelley v. Wegman's Food Markets, Inc., 98 F. App'x 102, 104-05 (3d Cir. 2004); United States v. Triplett, 195 F.3d 990, 999 (8th Cir. 1999); United States v. Moonda, 347 F. App'x 192, 201 (6th Cir. 2009). Further, a district court's decision to disallow a jury view "is highly discretionary." Triplett, 195 F.3d at 999; see also Moonda, 347 F. App'x at 201; Kelley, 98 F. App'x at 104-105.

Based on this discretion, a district court may deny a party's request for a jury view if the court believes it would be "time consuming, difficult to control, and . . . [un]necessary in order for the jury to fully appreciate the case." Kelley, 98 F. App'x at 105. Further, a court may deny a party's request for a jury view where the other evidence available is sufficient otherwise without the view. Id. (upholding denial of a jury view where the district court had allowed numerous photographs and reports and relevant testimony into evidence); United States v. Passos-Paternina, 918 F.2d 979, 986 (1st Cir. 1990) (denying request for a jury view of a ship where there was "sufficient testimonial evidence about the vessel"); United States v. Culpepper, 834 F.2d 879, 883 (10th Cir.1987) (upholding the district court's denial of a jury view where the evidence included photographs from the day after the events in question occurred); Triplett, 195 F.3d at 999 (upholding the denial of a jury view where the trial evidence included photographs and diagrams of the sites of the defendant's arrests in addition to testimony concerning the circumstances and conditions at those locations at the relevant times); Hametner v. Villena, 361 F.2d 445, 446 (9th Cir. 1966) (...