Nat'l Salvage & Serv. Corp. v. Pristine Res.
| Decision Date | 01 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 3:21-cv-138 |
| Parties | NATIONAL SALVAGE AND SERVICE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. PRISTINE RESOURCES, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Plaintiff National Salvage and Service Corporation ("Plaintiff" or "National") filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment in the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County, Pennsylvania. (ECF No. 1-2 at 7-10). Defendant Pristine Resources Land LLC ("Defendant" or "Pristine")[1] has removed the declaratory judgment action to this Court. (ECF No. 1).
Presently before the Court is National's Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 5). The Motion has been fully briefed (ECF Nos. 5, 7) and is ripe for disposition.
For the reasons that follow, National's Motion is DENIED.
Because this action was originally filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County, Pennsylvania, (ECF No. 1), venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a). See Polizzi v. Cowles Magazines, Inc., 345 U.S. 663, 666 (1953) () (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)).
On June 30,2021, National filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment, seeking a declaration regarding the validity of an easement (the "Easement"). (See ECF No. 1-2 at 7-11). Because that Easement is central to National's Motion to Remand, the Court begins by reviewing its history.
On or about September 8,1989, BethEnergy Mines, Inc. ("BethEnergy") granted Cambria Cogen Company ("Cambria Cogen") an Easement "pertaining to one (1) underground raw water pipeline, one (1) underground wastewater pipeline and an electric powerline, together with all appurtenances related to the pipelines and powerline" by way of an Easement Agreement. (Id. at 7-8). Cambria Cogen used the Easement to obtain water from a certain pump house and metering station near the Wilmore Dam and bring that water to the Cambria Cogen property. (Id. at 8).
On November 8, 2019, National purchased the "real estate and physical plant, including Water Assets and the Easement," from Cambria Cogen. (Id.). Further, Pristine is a successor to BethEnergy. (Id. at 7). Therefore, the Easement Agreement entered into by BethEnergy and Cambria Cogen now binds National and Pristine. (Id. at 8).
In relevant part, the Easement Agreement provides the following:
[I]f the Grantee [Cambria Cogen and National, as successor] shall at any time cease to use or maintain the facilities and the non-user shall continue uninterrupted by any use by the Grantee for a period of one (1) year or longer ... the easement and right-of-way herein granted shall at the option of the Grantor [BethEnergy and Pristine ... as successor] immediately terminate and the Grantee shall thereupon remove the facilities from said lands of the Grantor with all reasonable speed .... The easement granted hereby shall be an easement appurtenant and shall run with the title of the land to be conveyed to the Grantee .... The said lands shall be the servient tenement and the Facility Lands [National Salvage's Property] shall be the dominant tenement.
According to Pristine, the "Easement has not been used since mid-June 2020 and thus, has terminated and is no longer in effect with the exception of [National's] obligation to remove the pipelines and reclaim the area affected by their removal." (Id. at 9). National disagrees, contending that it has "continuously used the stormwater pipeline, thus it complied with ... the Easement and the Easement remains valid." (Id.).
On August 12, 2021, Pristine removed the action to this Court. (ECF No. 1). In its Notice of Removal, Pristine states that this Court (Id. at 1-2).
On September 3, 2021, National filed a Motion to Remand this case to the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County, Pennsylvania. (ECF No. 5). National does not dispute the parties' diversity. (See ECF No. 5).[4] However, National contends that this action does not satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. (ECF No. 5 at 2).
On September 10, 2021, Pristine submitted its Response in Opposition to National's Motion. (ECF No. 7). Finally, on September 23, 2021, the Court heard oral argument regarding the Motion. (ECF No. 10).
National argues that the amount in controversy requirement is not satisfied because National does not seek "monetary damages, but rather declaratory judgment holding the [E]asement is valid." (ECF No. 5 at 2). Further, with respect to Pristine's contention that National would be "responsible for removing thousands of feet of pipes and reclaim[ing] the property" in the event the Easement is deemed invalid, National asserts that, if it must remove the pipes, it will cost far less than $75,000 to do so. (Id.). Finally, National contends that the "obligation to remove the pipes is not a matter before the Court for this action." (Id.).
In response, Pristine argues that it is well settled that "the measure of the amount in controversy in a declaratory judgment action is the reasonable value of the relief sought[.]" (ECF No. 7 at 2).
Further, Pristine contends that National's (Id. at 4). In this vein, Pristine provided the Court with a declaration from Mr. Larry Neff ("Mr. Neff"), Manager of Operations for Pristine, regarding the cost of restoring the Easement and right of way land in the event that the Easement is no longer valid. (Id. at 4-5). According to Mr. Neff, if the Easement is declared invalid, National "will be required to remove thousands of feet of pipe and restore and reclaim the land ... [and] [b]ased on [his] experience as Manager of Operations ... [he] can say to a reasonable degree of certainty that the cost of such a project will be approximately $716,464.04." (ECF No. 7-1).
Finally, Pristine disagrees with National's assertion that its "reclamation obligations are not a matter before the Court in this action[.]" (ECF No. 7 at 2-3). Pristine contends that National raised this very issue in its Petition for Declaratory Judgment. (Id. at 3).
"Removal of cases from state to federal courts is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441." Samuel-Bassett v. KIA Motors Am., Inc., 357 F.3d 392, 396 (3d Cir. 2004). Pursuant to Section 1441, a defendant may remove "any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction[.]"[5] 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Under the diversityjurisdiction doctrine applicable here, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). If at "any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Regarding the "jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement, when a party has not pled a specific sum of damages in the complaint, the notice of removal may assert the amount in controversy." Klaphake v. Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, No. 17-CV-1359, 2018 WL 1736791, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 11,2018) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c) (2) (A) (i)). The "defendant's notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold." Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014).
Further, where, "as here, a plaintiff contests the defendant's allegation, the defendant must provide evidence establishing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000." Klaphake, 2018 WL 1736791, at *1 (citing Dart, 574 U.S. at 89). The court must then determine "whether a 'preponderance of the evidence' shows that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied." Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B)); see also Dart, 574 U.S. at 88. As evidence "of the jurisdictional amount, the Court may consider the complaint, the notice of removal, and subsequent submissions related to the motion to remand." Klaphake, 2018 WL 1736791, at *1.
In evaluating "whether the amount in controversy requirement has been satisfied, the Court considers all relief sought by Plaintiff[] -both monetary and nonmonetary." Walls v. Repsol Oil and Gas USA, LLC, No. 4:20-CV-00782, 2020 WL 5502151, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 11, 2020). The "amount in controversy 'is measured by the value of the object of the litigation.'" Id. (quoting Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Stevens & Ricci Inc., 835 F.3d 388, 398 (3d Cir. 2016)). Specifically, in a declaratory judgment action, the "value of property rights ... is the monetary worth of those rights to the plaintiff." Klaphake, 2018 WL 1736791, at *2 ().
To continue reading
Request your trial