Bertrand v. Gastar Exploration, Inc., 5:14-cv-00147

Plaintiffs Charles and Debra Bertrand own a residence adjacent to land where defendant Gastar Exploration, Inc. conducted oil and gas operations.
Plaintiffs sued in Marshall County Circuit Court for private nuisance, alleging contaminated water, continuous noise, odors/fumes, and litter, seeking compensatory, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.
Gastar removed the case to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction (Gastar is Delaware/Texas; plaintiffs are West Virginia citizens) and filed a counterclaim alleging breach of contract based on a $25,000 payment for a well pad right.
Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing Gastar failed to show the required amount in controversy (>$75,000) at the time of removal.
Gastar replied that (1) the $25,000 payment reflects plaintiffs’ valuation, (2) punitive damages could push the amount over $75,000, and (3) attorney’s fees and costs would further increase the controversy amount.
The district court evaluated the record as of removal and found Gastar’s showing speculative, concluding Gastar did not meet its burden to establish the amount in controversy; the case was remanded to state court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether diversity jurisdiction’s amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied	Amount in controversy not shown; defendant offered only recitation of complaint and speculative figures	$25,000 payment, potential punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees together likely exceed $75,000	Remand: defendant failed to prove amount in controversy by preponderance; showing speculative and insufficient
Whether punitive damages allegation alone establishes amount in controversy	Punitive damages claim is speculative and insufficient	Punitive damages could make case exceed jurisdictional threshold	Allegation of punitive damages alone does not satisfy amount-in-controversy requirement

In re Blackwater Sec. Consulting, LLC, 460 F.3d 576 (4th Cir.) (removing party bears burden to establish federal jurisdiction)
Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chems. Co., Inc., 29 F.3d 148 (4th Cir.) (removal jurisdiction strictly construed; doubts resolved against removal)
Hartley v. CSX Transp., Inc., 187 F.3d 422 (4th Cir.) (remand required when federal jurisdiction is doubtful)
Lowrey v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir.) (amount in controversy measured by record at time of removal)
Wiemers v. Good Samaritan Soc., 212 F. Supp. 2d 1042 (N.D. Iowa) (punitive damages claim alone does not establish threshold for removal)