Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent Inc v. Mashburn
5:13-cv-01050
| W.D. Okla. | Feb 6, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Newfield Exploration removed a state-law surface-d damages case to federal court seeking to remove only the Mashburns’ petition.
- Mashburns filed a demand for jury trial and a petition for damages related to the same land tract.
- Plaintiff filed removal notice attempting to remove the Mashburns’ petition under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441,1332(a).
- Defendants move to remand arguing removal is improper for counterclaims under 1441(a).
- Court must decide whether Mashburns’ petition is removable as a separate and independent claim or as a counterclaim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal was proper under 1441(a). | Newfield argues petition is separate and independent. | Mashburns argue petition is not removable counterclaim. | Remand granted; petition is counterclaim and not removable. |
| Are counterclaims removable under 1441(a) for this case? | Newfield asserts independence and removability. | Mashburns contend counterclaims are not removable. | Counterclaims not removable; no jurisdiction. |
| Does Shamrock Oil limit on removal apply to this situation? | Newfield relies on traditional removal rights. | Mashburns rely on narrow defendant definition. | Shamrock Oil limits removal to traditional defendants; not removable. |
| Should the case be remanded due to lack of removal jurisdiction? | Removal was proper under independence. | Removal jurisdiction is lacking. | Remand required; jurisdiction improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (U.S. 1941) (limits removal to traditional defendants)
- Ward Petroleum Corp. v. Stewart, 64 P.3d 1113 (Okla. 2003) (surface damages related claims kept on separate tracks)
- Chicago,, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Stude, 346 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1954) (removal is a federal question; state procedure cannot control removal)
- Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826 (U.S. 2002) (well-pleaded complaint rule governs removability)
- First National Bank of Pulaski v. Curry, 301 F.3d 456 (6th Cir. 2002) (counterclaims generally not removable under the general rule)
- Palisades Collections LLC v. Shorts, 552 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 2008) (define who can remove under §1441(a))
- Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corp. v. Quinn, 419 F.2d 1014 (7th Cir. 1969) (counterclaim raising issues beyond pleading not removable)