Deyarmett v. Antero Resources Corporation, 1:17-cv-00086

Plaintiff Robert Wayne Deyarmett, a Mississippi prisoner, sued Antero Resources in state court claiming unpaid royalties under a March 2006 oil and gas lease.
Antero, a Delaware corporation with principal place of business in Colorado, was served only after an amended complaint; it removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
Antero submitted a 2012 Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) showing Vanguard Permian (a Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC subsidiary) acquired the Lease as an asset and assumed related obligations; Vanguard is in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Southern District of Texas.
Antero moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(7) for failure to join an indispensable party (Vanguard), and also argued lack of subject matter jurisdiction and defects in service; the court reviewed extrinsic evidence on jurisdictional issues.
The court concluded it has diversity subject matter jurisdiction but that Vanguard is a necessary party whose joinder is barred by the bankruptcy automatic stay, so Rule 19(b) requires dismissal.
The action was dismissed without prejudice; the court noted Plaintiff may seek relief in bankruptcy (adversary proceeding, proof of claim, or relief from stay).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject-matter jurisdiction	Deyarmett proceeded in state court; (implicitly) alleges state-law royalty claim	Antero: property/claims are Vanguard estate matters subject to bankruptcy court exclusive jurisdiction	Court: Diversity jurisdiction exists; bankruptcy exclusivity (§1334(e)) does not automatically oust in personam suits here
Failure to join indispensable party (Rule 19)	Deyarmett did not join Vanguard; argues against joinder implicitly by proceeding without it	Antero: Vanguard, as assignee under the PSA, has an interest and must be joined; absent joinder dismissal is required	Court: Vanguard is necessary; its absence risks inconsistent obligations and prejudice—joinder required
Feasibility of joinder given bankruptcy	Deyarmett offered no means to involve Vanguard	Antero: Vanguard is in bankruptcy and protected by the automatic stay, so it cannot be joined now	Court: Vanguard cannot be joined while automatic stay in effect; Rule 19(b) then mandates dismissal in equity and good conscience
Adequacy of proceeding without Vanguard (remedies)	Deyarmett seeks relief against Antero in this forum	Antero: proceeding risks inconsistent duties and adjudication of rights to estate property without Vanguard	Court: Judgment would be inadequate and prejudicial; dismissal without prejudice is appropriate; plaintiff may seek relief in bankruptcy court

Oviedo v. Lowe’s Home Improvement, Inc., [citation="184 F. App'x 411"] (5th Cir.) (pro se parties are not exempt from procedural rules)
Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2001) (district courts may address jurisdictional challenges first and consider evidence outside the pleadings)
Landry v. Exxon Pipeline Co., 260 B.R. 769 (Bankr. M.D. La. 2001) (discussing §1334(e) in rem jurisdiction over debtor property vs. in personam suits)
HS Res., Inc. v. Wingate, 327 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2003) (12(b)(7) dismissal for failure to join under Rule 19)
Hood ex rel. Miss. v. City of Memphis, 570 F.3d 625 (5th Cir. 2009) (two-step Rule 19 analysis and practical, fact-based determination of indispensability)
Pulitzer-Polster v. Pulitzer, 784 F.2d 1305 (5th Cir. 1986) (policy favoring joinder of parties with an interest to allow complete resolution in one forum)