Whisenant v. Sheridan Production Company, 627 F. App'x 706

Whisenant filed an Oklahoma state-class action alleging Sheridan underpaid or failed to pay royalties on natural gas wells in Beaver County, OK.
Sheridan removed to federal court under CAFA, asserting the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million; Whisenant moved to remand.
District court computed unpaid royalties at $3,721,797 and added statutory post-judgment interest under Oklahoma’s Production Revenue Standards Act (12% p.a.), totaling $1,512,869, to reach over $5.2 million and deny remand.
Whisenant obtained permission to appeal the denial of remand to the Tenth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1).
Central legal question: whether statutory interest (or other statutory amounts) must be included in CAFA’s amount-in-controversy calculation, which requires amounts be assessed “exclusive of interest and costs.”

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether statutory interest under Oklahoma law can be included in CAFA amount-in-controversy	Whisenant: statutory interest is excluded because CAFA requires amount "exclusive of interest"; interest arises solely from delay	Sheridan: statutory interest is part of total compensatory liability and thus may be counted toward CAFA threshold	Court: Reversed district court — statutory interest that arises solely from delayed payment is excluded from CAFA amount-in-controversy
Whether other statutory or non-interest amounts (e.g., fees) may be included to meet CAFA threshold	Whisenant: only non-interest, non-cost amounts should be counted	Sheridan: alternatives like attorney’s fees could be added to reach jurisdictional amount	Court: Declined to decide; remanded for district court to consider any non-interest amounts that may be included

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014) (describes CAFA jurisdictional requirements)
Horton v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 367 U.S. 348 (1961) (amount-in-controversy is a federal question; state law defines substantive right)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Narvaez, 149 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir. 1998) (interest arising solely from delay in payment is excluded from § 1332 amount-in-controversy)
Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Juntunen, 838 F.2d 942 (7th Cir. 1988) (defines ‘‘interest’’ for jurisdictional purposes as sum due because of delayed payment)
Regan v. Marshall, 309 F.2d 677 (1st Cir. 1962) (statutory or contractual interest that is incident to delayed payment is excluded from amount-in-controversy)
Woods v. Standard Ins. Co., 771 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2014) (statutory interpretation principles and remand guidance)