Barbara Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Company, Farrar Oilfield Service and Equipment Co., and Tri-State Oil Services, Inc., Tri-State Oil Services, Inc.

consider those alternatives. But it is not acceptable response

an approach City limiting advertising

taken

exposure say City that the must aban- altogether approach

don directly goal. problem

advances its In the face of a significant City as that which the seeks address, City given must be some

reasonable latitude.

63 F.3d at 1316.

For the reasons advanced in Anheuser-

Busch, that, we conclude here while the fit City’s objectives

between the and the means perfect,

selected achieve them not be range nevertheless falls well within the

tolerated the First Amendment for the

regulation speech. of commercial reasons, foregoing

For the affirm we

judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED. ALLEN, al.,

Barbara et Plaintiffs-

Appellants, COMPANY,

R & H OIL & GAS Farrar Equipment Co.,

Oilfield Service and Services, Inc., Defendants,

Tri-State Oil Services, Inc.,

Tri-State Oil

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 94-60444. Appeals,

United States Court of

Fifth Circuit.

Aug.

1328 Martin, Jr., Cummings,

Richard M. Cum- Dudenhefer, mings Orleans, LA, & New appellants. Services, Jones, III, Wallace, (collectively, Inc. the “de- State Oil B. Walker W. Michael fendants”), Richter, operated the well. The Ziemianski, Todd A. C.

Joseph suit Dunbar, Jackson, plaintiffs’ individual claims—the Barlow, Allen Phelps D. Chuck based a class action —are theories MS, appellee. liability, negligence and strict compensatory punitive damages. seek pled. was specific No defendants, which are Louisiana cor- petitioned porations, for removal to federal DeMOSS, JOLLY, SMITH Before court, complete asserting that there di- Judges. Circuit citizenship set versity of between the plaintiffs See 28 and the set defendants. SMITH, Judge: Circuit JERRY E. contended, 1441, They §§ 1446. also U.S.C. joint, plaintiffs of a state-law tort terms, $50,000.01 The 512 conclusory in that the (the plaintiffs” “plaintiffs”) “Allen action amount-in-controversy requirement was met. of their claims federal appeal the removal granted. Removal was that the district court They court. contend discovery plaintiffs, phase the The juris- subject-matter finding in federal erred magistrate judge, a then moved case before (diversity § 1332 under 28 U.S.C. diction ground that the amount-in- to remand on the improperly “aggregat- citizenship), controversy requirement was not met. The claim for as ed” their gravamen of was that the defen- their motion $50,000.01 reaching amount- in “whole” present evidence that dants had failed They plaintiff. in-controversy mark for each plaintiff’s claim exceeded that each showed misapplied court claim the district also $50,000 requirement. § 1332’s in assessing for the amount contro- standard defendants, response, made two The challenge defendants’ versy plaintiffs when First, arguments. they that contended jurisdiction. Because of removal assertion punitive damage award could be as- alleged plaintiff has an undivided find that each we against plaintiff. In each individual sessed puni- alleged full amount of the claim for the alternative, they argued excep- that an damages, the com- which on the face of tive amount-in-controversy’s non-ag- tion to the juris- plaint likely than not exceeds more applied, principle so that each indi- gregation amount, we affirm. dictional punitive damage plaintiffs potential vidual applied aggregated and award could be

I. $50,000 requirement. 20, 1990, May gas memoranda, an oil and well considering On parties’ After Heidelberg, Mis- exploded the town judge, near bones” or- magistrate “bare causing of the area. Ac- sissippi, up- evacuation der, denying remand. recommended cording plaintiffs, who are local resi- order, court reasoned holding the district dents, damage property and potential punitive suffered aggregation of the that the injuries and wide-ranging, physical plaintiff mental proper, as each damages award was and of toxic explosion release from undivided interest common and shared fumes. claim.1 plaintiffs’ joint- also considered The court

Subsequently, the 512 Allen complaint amend- “clarify” against motion ly suit in state court filed requisite explicitly than the to seek less Company, Oilfield ment R H Gas Farrar & Oil & punitive dam- compensatory Company, Equipment and Tri- Service the same that reasoning concludes follows: 1. court’s full as plaintiffs’ punitive damage as to cannot said case to file this The 512 elected sought damages are sin- and, claim. Punitive against single while action defendants wrong thus have a gle who compensatory their claims any punitive divisible, court, interest in and undivided giving common separate due purpose award. nature consideration suit,” ages. requisite jurisdic This motion likewise was denied on to meet the such ground post-petition Harris, amend- Snyder tional level. See 394 U.S. finding ments were mooted 332, 1053, 336, 1057, L.Ed.2d 319 requisite met alone (1969) (quoting Troy Bank v. G.A. Whitehead court, Finally, recogniz- amount. the district Co., 40, 39, 9, 9, & 222 U.S. 32 S.Ct. 56 L.Ed ing split among district courts (1911)); Co., Paper Zahn v. International aggregation circuit on the issue 414 U.S. 94 S.Ct. damages, certified this case for immediate (1973) (“[O]ne plaintiff may L.Ed.2d 511 1292(b). appeal § via 28 U.S.C. coattails.”) (citation ride in on another’s omitt ed).3 general rule is that each II. diversity who citizenship jurisdic invokes allege damages tion must dol meet the Removal controlled 28 U.S.C. requirement § lar which provides, part, in relevant “any brought civil action in a State “Aggregation” damages allegedly

which the district courts of the United States original jurisdiction, may separate however, have plaintiffs, be removed owed to defendants, or the defendant permitted in the limited situation “two where ” district court of United States.... plaintiffs single or more unite to enforce a original exists, jurisdiction example, Such for right title or in have a common “diversity if is citizenship,” there of such as Snyder, undivided interest.” 394 at U.S. where suit is between citizens of different 335, 89 at Unfortunately, S.Ct. 1056.4 amount-in-controversy states ex “common and undivided” test retains an $50,000. Here, § ceeds 28 U.S.C. 1332. amorphous quality. In applying this stan plaintiffs dispute diversity ques do not but dard, many have to courts failed eschew la application tion the of the amount-in-contro stating bels. And the maxim is far easier versy standard.2 than determining principles that under- gird it. The developed standards that have A. largely origins pre- this area have their Federal Rules easelaw and take their modem long The Supreme Court has inter day judicial application. form Ac preted § phrase 1332’s “matter in controver cordingly, sy” recognized we guide address the multiple allow to add demands, together “separate lines so far applying and distinct have evolved before economy for convenience and unite[d] them to the damages claim here. face, complaint plain analysis, 2. The dissent meaning a common and undivided interest. recovery. claim for right law one of state claim creates impression first question is an of This issue Id. at 564. Chinowith, 682, (1970). See 24 L.Ed.2d 681 also N. v. 90 S.Ct. 5. also Insurance Co. Am. See of Executor, 598, 916, County (5th Cir.) v. 211 U.S. Green 602, Thomas’ (finding 917-18 Texas 393 F.2d 170, 168, (1909) S.Ct. 53 L.Ed. 343 29 compensation on creates one statute workmen’s denied, (finding aggregation proper 990, where recovery), 89 right 393 U.S. of 474, cert. proper divi concern in "has no interest or (1968); Kelly 453 v. Hart 21 L.Ed.2d among who are due ... those sion of the amount Co., 400, 409 & 294 F.2d Accident Indem. ford verdict."); proceeds of the entitled to share Cir.1961) (five (5th single plaintiffs enforcing 1066, Shufeldt, 122 7 S.Ct. Gibson v. U.S. denied, action), wrongful-death cert. 368 cause of 1067, (1887) ("|T|he is wheth test 30 L.Ed. 1083 989, 605, (1962); 7 526 82 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d U.S. right, the they claim it under one common er 726, Taylor, Phillips v. 115 F.2d Petroleum Co. having apportion party in its adverse interest Cir.1940) (5th suing (multiple plaintiffs 728 them....”); among ment distribution or 565, denied, lease), cert. 313 mineral U.S. enforce 755, Otto) 754, “Connemara", (13 26 U.S. 103 941, (1941). L.Ed. 1524 61 S.Ct. 85 (1881) ("It no conse was a matter of L.Ed. 322 property quence saved how to the owners Therefore, not to confused with 6. this rule is be among apportioned money recovered was 20, joinder re- under Fed.R.Civ.P. O’Connell, it."); Sellers v. who had earned those transactionally plaintiffs' quires that claims be ("An 575, Cir.1983) identifying 701 F.2d 579 from the same The fact that arise related. inter a and undivided characteristic of common justi- occurrence is an insufficient transaction or plaintiff cannot or does not est is that if one aggregation. 1 su- to allow See fication Moore, shares, remaining the shares collect his 0.97[3], ("The pra, appropriateness of at 920 V increased.”). plaintiffs are depends upon aggregation the nature of plaintiffs’ than on the source of claims rather 179, Cisco, City 290 188- v. U.S. 8.See Bullard right relatedness of to sue or transactional 180, 89, 177, (ag 78 L.Ed. 254 54 S.Ct. claims.”). recovery gregation prevented from ultimately coupons held in trust bonds and Ass’n, Racing 479, Narragansett beneficiaries); 414 Clay, 7. See Berman v. at go U.S. 138 would 311, (1st Cir.1969) ("[I]t long ("The has been general principle 316 observed F.2d 425 11 S.Ct. at impor is, joined persons of considerable be in suit that one factor if settled in all several plaintiffs' admiralty, equity inter have a common and on the issue of whether the or tance interest, separable though between has aggregable whether the defendant undivided ests are themselves, joint apportioned claim or if the amount of will be in how the fund an interest 1037, denied, jurisdiction.”). liability test of will prevail."), 396 U.S. cert. 1332 malicious, appellate

on circuit.9 level this We tional to deter him and begin by examining punitive nature of from City others similar extreme conduct.” Concerts, Inc., Newport damages. Fact 453 v. U.S. 247, 266-267, 2759, 2748, 101 S.Ct. 69 damages punish. Punitive almost (1981).10 L.Ed.2d 616 “[p]unitive damages unanimous is that rule to compensate Mississippi’s controlling definition are not intended law on injured punish party, but rather follows the rule. Accord- Court, wrongful ing Mississippi Supreme inten- tortfeasor whose action was a rea- however, circuit, ground have on District courts cases were class actions Lailhengue disagreed question. plaintiffs joined over the In v. where est), to enforce common inter- 908, dism'd, Corp., F.Supp. (5th Cir.1994) appeal Oil Mobil 775 910-14 32 F.3d 567 (E.D.La.1991), curiam) (per (unpublished). court held that dam ages arising single refinery explosion from alternatively final A class cases finds that "aggregated.” The punitive damages could be court found that the either not common and plaintiffs had a “common and undivided inter right proof undivided or that the defendant’s right est” as quantum is insufficient. See event Co., 26, arose from a or act of F.Supp. Shell Chadwick v. (E.D.La.1993) Oil 828 28 (the explosion), the conduct defendant's conduct (speculating aggregation plaintiff, respect was the same with to each might refusing proper, jurisdiction to find had collective interest in creation proof supporting because of insufficient alleged any Co., amount); a fund sufficient to deter miscon 94-3005, Joseph v. Shell Oil No. Moreover, 710674, duct in the future. Id. at 913. if the WL 1994 1994 LEXIS U.S.Dist. action, (E.D.La. 16, 1994) claims were treated as a class no individ (holding Dec. that claim for right ual have the would assert them punitive damages under Louisiana law individually. plain at Id. 913-14. Nor would spec common and undivided amount was and/or ulative); tiffs' circumstances affect award. Id. at 914. Corp., Clement v. Chem. Occidental No. sum, 94-1315, 479155, that court viewed as a WL 1994 U.S.Dist. LEX policy-created, public 26, interest owed to (E.D.La. 1994) the class (same); Aug. IS 12387 Becnel whole; Co., award is aimed at 94-1838, Oil Marathon No. 1995 WL deterring wrongful conceptually 217487, (E.D.La. conduct and 1995 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 4860 compensation 10, 1995) different from for harm to (same); Co., April Oil Anderson Shell plaintiff. also In N. 93-2235, individual See re Dist. Cal. No. WL 1994 U.S.Dist. Liability Litig., (E.D.La. “Daikon Shield” IUD Prods. (insuffi 1994) LEXIS 17996 Dec. (N.D.Cal.1981), F.Supp. on vacated oth proof quantum). cient (9th Cir.1982), grounds, er denied, F.2d 693 847 cert. 1171, 817, 459 U.S. 103 S.Ct. 74 L.Ed.2d Haslip, 10. See also Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pacific Life (1983); City Corp., 1015 Martin v. Granite Steel 1, 19, 1032, 1044, 499 U.S. 111 S.Ct. 113 293, (S.D.Ill.1984). F.Supp. 596 297 (1991) (finding L.Ed.2d 1 that under most states' laws, punitive damages "punitive damages imposed pur- A second class of cases treats are for plain poses deterrence”); as individual awards that are owed to of and retribution v. Gertz Welch, Inc., 323, proportion 350, tiff in to their total number. In Granier Robert 418 U.S. 94 Inc., 94-3990, Eparka (1974) (Punitive Shipping, v. 41 No. 1995 L.Ed.2d 789 91129, (E.D.La. damages compensation WL injury. 1995 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 2569 "are not for In- 1, 1995), stead, they private Mar. juries the court held that no "common are fines levied civil group punish reprehensible and undivided” existed for a interest of to conduct and to deter its occurrence.”); punitive damages even if their claims future (Second) Restatement of event, § all commentary only arose from same because under 908. One states that Torts Connecticut, plaintiff separate state Michigan, law each could raise a the decisional law of and *1-2, punitive damages. Hampshire recognizes claim at compensatory Id. 1995 New punitive damages. U.S.Dist. LEXIS 2569 at *4. That court also function for 1 Linda L. reading Lindsey relied Co., v. Alabama Tel. KENNETH R. & ScHLUETER PUNITIVE DAMAGES REDDEN, 593, (5th Cir.1978), 1.4(B), (2d ed.1989). § 576 F.2d 595 at & 3 17 n. A more commentary we remanded a class action to on state court recent adds but Texas omits New ground allege Hampshire. had failed to See 1 James D. Ghiardi & John J. class, persons making impos number tbl. 4- Damages Kircher, Practice, Punitive Law and 1, per (1994) sought sible (summary to determine actual amount at 4—47 4—52 to table on plaintiff. Significantly, opin positions language punitive damages). of the on states’ con- including suggests ion the total of trast to the conclusion reached Ghiardi and Id.; law, however, punitive damages regarding in this calculation. see Kircher Texas this court 89-4367, Blanton, Commissioner, also Garrett v. No. WL 1993 Estate Moore v. 53 F.3d 712 345648, (E.D.La. (5th Cir.1995), 1993 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 12196 has held that under Texas state 27, 1993) law, Aug. (treating punitive damage punitive damages compensatory have no separately distinguishing Lailhengue purpose. and and like

1333 only. in function puni- law of individual awards While on the state’s instruction sonable an separate plaintiffs award in seek damages is as'follows: tive cases,11 right separate the narrow to seek damages damages are added Punitive only poli- damages public such exists because bringing public service awarded through cy expressed as state statutes and account, example as to wrongdoer to generally law the common so dictate. See repeating the and from deter others warn Damages (“So 734, § at 787 Am.Jur.2d They to are never awarded same act. viewed, damages are punitive allowed on injured a matter party or as benefit the grounds public policy in the interest of and compel to right, punish rather to and benefit.”) (foot- society public and for the proper wrongdoer to have due omitted). damages An damages alleged of that the full amount determining against plaintiff damages counted each punitive Because jurisdictional punitive dam- amount. As compensatory, they not are are 908(2), sep- for appear functionally The 12. individual suits 11. These of Torts (Second) Restatement caselaw, limited, arate, supports example, assessing punitive dam- "[i]n since albeit states that argument previous would limit that awards not properly ages, fact can consider the the trier of subsequent ability plaintiffs to be act, awarded of the defendant's the nature and character of Special Comm, punitive damages. See ABA further plaintiff that the defen- extent the harm to of A Damages- Construc- Damages, Punitive on Punitive or cause and the wealth dant caused intended to po- (examining the Examination 71-85 added.) Thus, tive (Emphasis of defendant.” award, damage multiple punitive for tential part by damages punitive are assessed while hotly of thorniest and most contested "[o]ne plaintiff, measuring to the harm an individual damages today”); punitive Andrea G. issues Nadel, factor is relevant that occurs because that focus Annotation, Awarding Propriety Punitive of principle degree wrong. limits No to Bringing Damages Separate Succes- Plaintiffs plaintiff to the harm one the measurement Arising Incident or Out Common sive Actions many. harmed where the defendant’s actions Against or De- Common Circumstances Defendant Doctrine), ("One "First Comer” Bite" or fendants cases). (1994) (collecting 11 A.L.R.4Ü11261 awards, ages plaintiff punitive damages, each for general are collective has because full integrated right previous an an that rule is awards are not a limit- An ultimate distribution ing subsequent award. award’s factor on awards. We thus change result. does not recognize plaintiffs generally that while being share an undivided interest in awarded are, Punitive to use the punitive damages, that is interest not com- caselaw, language of the undivided claims of only mon in the that there sense is one and right potentially separable a with award. they split equally. one award that would Here, empow each the 512 was bring a claim for ered Nonetheless, do find we not that the separately. The fact that choose not to potential multiple liability for makes the individually not lim pursue their claims does plaintiffs’ separate. seeming alleged each plaintiff’s it entitlement anomaly multiple exposures award; only it affects its distribution. The damages arising out of the same conduct is limiting plaintiffs’ factor here was deci justified potential because of its extreme jointly. sion to file punish Maxey Freightliner deter. See course, seeing Of a defendant’s interest in (N.D.Tex.1978) Corp., F.Supp. plaintiffs’ greatly J.) is af- individual cases fail (Higginbotham, (examining Texas state by procedural posture (5th fected of such law), aff'd, Cir.1980), reh’g 623 F.2d 395 multi-plaintiff claims.- In class actions grounds, on other 665 F.2d 1367 Cir. suits, potential exposure 1982) (en banc).13 the defendant’s to a harsh, Such a and to some large damage award is not affected absurd, price result is “tolerated as by long the failure of individual claims as as private public goal,” achievement of plaintiff Accordingly, one is successful. provides it a windfall to individual situation, the defendant has no interest plaintiffs. Id. The plain award is not the award, in the distribution of the a fact that society’s. tiffs’ but long supported has the conclusion that the Finally, accepted puni- under the view right claims of are common and public good, tive aggrega- See, Berman, e.g., undivided. 414 F.2d at meaning the separate addition of tion — necessary, claims—is as each share $50,- faces a up Where series of an award is not added to exceed claims, strongly is by -just individual it affected as one does award not subtract 000— or failure of success each individual claim from a future claimant’s In- entitlement. Maxey, preventing 13. In the district court examined the able devices for deterrence from problem punitive damages becoming denigrate mass torts destruction. is not to This products liability juiy. jury the decision area some Each has detail: before aggregate one case—it is the effect of plaintiff attempts [W]hen to recover juries' several faithful adherence to the law conduct, urging willful a defendant poses risk ultimate destruction. This is pinch multiple exposure. feels the although exemplary true award dam- pinch exemplary the amount of an ages accurately instructed and whol- wholly award controlled the extent of ly jury. presented by separate fair The hazards injury suffered the immediate so exemplary damages design awards of de- multiple by devastating. cases can indeed products fects common to thousands of Richardson-Merrell, Inc., Roginsky See apparent. Understandably, real and each (2d Cir.1967). Arguably, F.2d 832 substantive plaintiff’s public counsel dons the robes of the right procedural outstripped has here its broth- premise private the interest. And of the attor- er because there is no available device for general’s ney private is role that interests aof exemplary damage distribution award rub, plaintiff public parallel. and the are The among injured. exemplary all But because however, is that after the first award of exem- function, damages compensatory do not have a plary damages, parallelism that is lost. Pres- difficulty equitably distributing awards is accepts law ent tort that idea manufactur- contexts, problem. prime not the In other ought ers to be checked deterrent based exemplary nature windfall awards is tolerat- ought quest remedies. Yet we not in our price private public ed a as a achievement public safety sight lose obvious—with no goal pointedly But products, of deterrence. those cases there are no consumers. procedural F.Supp. are in contexts which have avail- 450 at 962.

1335 tried, claims, controversy. stead, jointly are amount This situation —not while circuit, plaintiff for unusual in this as both Texas belonging to each treated as sum, procedure In of Louisiana state civil disallows jurisdictional purposes. amounts, damage specific scope claims for see Tex. collective 47; under Mis- R.CxvP. Civ.PROC. Art. 893— as individual claims their nature La.Code law, “legal certainty” impose not the same hold that under does sissippi we Instead, plaintiffs alleged is test. com- “[w]hen law amount of such an award against required jur- plaint allege specific a amount does counted removing amount. must isdictional preponderance

prove by a of the evidence controversy $50,- that the amount in exceeds III. Co., 55, Aguilar Boeing v. 11 F.3d 000.” De issue also raise the (5th Cir.1993) (hereinafter Aguilar 58 “De proof measuring de- proper burden of I”). jurisdictional fendant’s assertion this has not been with- amount. While issue explicitly We have listed never circuit, controversy out in this some recent types proof acceptable under what has much of it. caselaw settled caselaw, however, guides standard. Some analysis. First, the district court’s a court

A. proper if can determine that removal was it likely facially apparent that the claims are While is well settled that I, $50,000. F.3d Aguilar above See De 11 at removing party the burden of bears estab ANPAC, 57; (holding, F.2d at 566 necessary lishing the to show that fed facts cf. part, proper exists, that remand where jurisdiction eral Gaitor v. Peninsular 252, “facially appar Co., amount was otherwise & 287 F.2d 253-54 Occidental S.S. ent”). not, removing attorney may (5th sup If Cir.1961), applied we have different jurisdiction by port setting federal forth the proof depending upon standards whether controversy preferably in the re complaint alleges a amount of dollar — facts petition, moval but sometimes affidavit— damages. plaintiff alleged has Where the finding requisite support requisite sum certain that exceeds the Inc., v. amount. See Garza Bettcher Indus. controversy, that amount controls (E.D.Mich.1990). 753, F.Supp. Mercury if in good made faith. St. Paul Co., 289, 283, v. Red Indem. Co. Cab 303 U.S. Removal, however, cannot be (1938). 82 L.Ed. 845 conclusory allegations. simply upon based jurisdiction for a “it order court refuse Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d Gaus appear legal certainty [must] Cir.1992). Finally, manner of under jurisdictional really claim is for less than the jurisdictional support proof, the facts course, plaintiff pleads amount.” if a Of judged at the time of the removal must be amount, jurisdiction than the less removal, any post-petition affidavits are bar rem generally he can a defendant from period if allowable relevant case, Thus, diversity typical oval.14 ANPAC, 565. time. 988 F.2d at plaintiff remains the master of his com plaint. Here, dispute whether the dis- proof applied proper burden of converse situation to St. Paul Mercu- trict “jurisdictional necessary ry plaintiff specify fails to to determine is where a amount, jurisdictional proper recently may un- have that this rule removal 14. We noted jurisdiction plaintiffs manipulate federal allow if that at the time of remov- less the shows pleadings do not limit the actual legally to recover al he was certain not to able Aguilar Boeing they ultimately De collect. words, at In other that amount. Id. Cir.1995) (hereinaf- Co., F.3d 47 1410 proved plaintiff’s to be where the claims can ”). Aguilar Accordingly, “de II we held that ter $50,000, type the that worth more than pled, if where an exact amount has been in cases they unless the can can be removed prove by preponderance a defendant can accept legally show is bound to less. he controversy that the amount in exceeds evidence argument making “facially apparent” for This is made court is the facts” removal. deter- First, spill mination, much parts. in the proper procedure two to the is look dissecting argue in that ink easelaw order only complaint at face of the the ask have an stan- this circuit does not established controversy whether amount in the like- meritless, argument dard. This is as De $50,000. toly exceed In situations where the Aguilar party seeking I that a established met, facially apparent test is not the district allege of a that does not removal claim require parties court can then sum- submit only jurisdic- specific prove amount need the evidence, mary-judgment-type relevant preponderance tional facts of the evi- controversy amount in at the the time of dence. removal.16 We would review that determina- alternative, in a to our plaintiffs argue In the tion fashion similar Fed.R.Civ.P. Agui- applying court erred in De 56 review. district by requiring “preponderance” lar I less than proof. support argument, plain- To case, puni In this total for claim denying tiffs court’s order read district likely is tive more than not to be for apply implicitly

their motion for remand to $50,000 more, compa or as it involves three liability” “possibility They standard. also nies, plaintiffs, variety and a wide language opposition cite from defendants’ allegedly harm caused wanton and reck remand that is believe conclusion- court, only A applying less conduct. in com ary. sense, mon would find if in were successful their The district court did not state ex claim, they $50,000. would collect more than plicitly what applying, standard it was Accordingly, we hold that the face of the magistrate “the im judge’s stated that complaint supports the assertion of federal plicit that aggregated punitive conclusion jurisdiction. $50,000 damages could cer well exceed can tainly ‘clearly not be characterized as errone ” added). ‘contrary (emphasis ous’ or law.’ B. A “could well” standard sounds more like a “possibility” proof, standard rather than a sought also to amend likely such, or “more not” standard. As complaint “clarify” order and, hence, district court’s or conclusion its controversy. argument This lacks based der are erroneous view the I, light Aguilar merit De 11 F.3d at 57 law. (holding controversy that amount in ease, complaint), determined from face of the

We need not remand the Mercury, Paul St. at U.S. application proper however. The of our (holding post-removal at 592 can events standard review —an issue that we have deprive jurisdiction a court of directly never af once has addressed —allows us to attached). procedural posture firm. Once the district court of this is found that case jurisdiction, jurisdiction similar to a it had 12(b)(6) is deemed motion Fed.R.Civ.P. summary judgment apply to have at motion. We a like vested the court the time of novo, standard of de An applying complaint review: removal. amendment limiting jurisdictional same standard of review as should dis purposes case, trict jurisdiction. court.15 In this where the district cannot divest proper procedure 15. We note that district court here did is to remand for correct fact- any explicit findings, finding). make factual engaged solely upon it was review focused complaint. Accordingly, face procedure require 16. The efficient is to not Fed.RXiv.P. such 52(a) apply, does not and we are not limited "summary judgement” proof until after the ini- Seafoods, our review of the record. See Icicle complaint. tial consideration of the face of the 709, 714, Worthington, Inc. U.S. 106 S.Ct. process justified This bifurcation of the under rules, (holding general 89 L.Ed.2d 739 mandate of Fed.R.Civ.P. appellate fact-finding even proof is not allowed fact that such is irrelevant and law; question jurisdiction facially apparent. of de determination novo wasteful if 1441(b) quirement § of 28 U.S.C. that none IV. of the be citizen of the state defendants conclusion, Mississippi, in we hold that brought. in action which such is damages by multi- joint claim for complaint The b. amended shows that against each plaintiffs should assessed ple be May and it was filed on contains determining juris- in the a whole as express allegations that the well blowout Here, a claim for amount. dictional plaintiffs’ and fire which was source of companies for wan- against three oil damage claims occurred on the afternoon oil ton and reckless conduct caused 29,1990. May plaintiffs’ conclusory The of town, and explosion, the of well evacuation allegations injury damage of and on the is, face, likely people its more harm 512 on complaint And, face of the must be evaluated $50,000. no more than than through filter the common sense of the complaint of the post-petition amendment lapse years of three of time be- almost jurisdiction. of can the district court divest casualty tween the occurrence of the AFFIRM. We therefore filing complaint. of the DeMOSS, dissenting: Judge, Circuit complaint c. amended does not any express allegation as contain majority in opinion There much with is monetary any damages, of either I I is more with which agree, which there punitive. actual or disagree, conclu- particularly ultimate removability. majority regarding sions complaint A the d. Exhibit amended my register I write therefore dissent. forth the names of all the various sets consisting plaintiffs, approximately begin- agree I that the with family minor groups of adults and children determining ning point propriety in appearing through are their mothers who case from state court to federal removal of a plaintiffs and next friends. All of these complaint” is look at the “face of the court alleged are to be citizens of State “facially appar- apply in state Mississippi. grouping than the Other Looking the amended com- ent” test. at plaintiffs family groups by these last plaint filed state court before last name, allegations are no there removal, I that the com- notice of conclude any fami- complaint amended that there is not removable for plaint on its was face ly relationship among between and all of following reasons: plaintiffs. allegations There are no are a.All of the defendants this case any criteria for a class action establishing corporations. U.S.C. Under allegation is no plaintiffs. all the There 1332(e)(1) § corporation “a shall plaintiffs joint owners of that all of the are any to be a citizen of state deemed any property any group of the nor that incorporated has been and of which it any joint property. plaintiffs are owners principal place of state it its where has allegation plain- that all of There no allegations amended business”. activity any partners tiffs are business entity corporate complaint state that each plaintiffs are any group of the nor corporation”, but there is is a “Louisiana activity. partners any business There is “by allegation as to no the state otherwise any allegation incorporated”. which has been Further- any corporate entity which shareholders more, defendants, of the Farrar Oil- one any damaged property. owner Inc., Co., Equipment field Service And, any allegation that is no there expressly alleged in the amended com- joined plaintiffs in this lawsuit plaint “principal place business to have agreement to recov- pursuant to an share allega- Mississippi”. That the State individually they might eries which a citi- corporate tion makes this plaintiffs. other entitled with Mississippi, zen of the State of face, therefore, original complaint complete diversity all its between On breaks because it did demon- required all un- was not removable plaintiffs and defendants diversity complete re- between strate der U.S.C. violates 1338 allege and it not

and defendants did that The notice of removal did contain state- $50,000 controversy least in in right there was at ment that defendants “reserve the support lawsuit. file additional for this notice of re- affidavits, by way of moval memorandum and agree language I of the with but, argument”, the record does not contain (i) opinion that it which indicates is well any dealing jurisdic- further affidavits with removing party settled “that bears the plaintiffs timely tional facts. The filed a establishing necessary burden of facts motion to remand to court asserting the state exists,” jurisdiction show that federal Gaitor that no showing there was that the amount in Co., v. Peninsular & Occidental S.S. 287 $50,000. controversy (5th (n) point, exceeded At this Cir.1961); 252, F.2d 253-54 that me, that seems to there should have been original complaint when the state court does some tender of evidence which the dis- specify controversy, dollar in trict disputed court could have removing prove resolved by “the defendant must jurisdictional facts. Both preponderance and of the that de- evidence fendants controversy $50,000”; submitted memoranda of amount in exceeds authorities De (De I), support in Aguilar Boeing Aguilar respective positions, of their Co. but I (iii) Cir.1993); nothing can in way F.3d and find a transcript multiple plaintiffs permitted testimony, any are not oral nor to add are there affidavits together demands, “separate summary and or other judgment type distinct evidence in economy united jurisdic- for convenience and in a disputed record to resolve the jurisdiction- requisite my suit” to meet the tional following juris- facts. view the Harris, amount, Snyder al 394 U.S. dictional facts are unresolved: L.Ed.2d 319 happened a. What (1969). analysis I now to turn of whether ultimately Farrar? Farrar Was served in removing defendants satisfied their bur- so, proceeding? join- state court If its proving jurisdictional den of facts. required der would be in the notice of of removal in notice this case was removal. filed defendants, by one of the Tri-State Oil Ser- b. allegation What does the in the no- vices, petition Inc. In its removal Tri-State tice of removal all defendants have following allegations: made the engage any “ceased to activity” business a. That the case was removable be- corporate mean? Have these entities been complete diversity plain- cause of between so, If parties dissolved? who are the tiffs and defendants and because there was passed whom and assets liabilities were on $50,000 controversy; at least dissolution and what is the residence of corporate b. That each of the three such If successors? have not been corporation organized dissolved, defendants “was a principal place where is the Louisiana, under the laws the State of corporation? business of each Proof of engage any but had ceased regarding corporate business these facts status and suit; activity” filing at the time activity requires very at the least an affi- corporate general davit of a officer. The “upon c. That information and belief allegations of counsel in notice of re- Farrar of the [one defendants] has not moval are not sufficient. been with a copy served summons and complaint”; c. is the What nature and extent of the “R d. That & H property damage [another personal injury defendant] sus- currently unrepresented by counsel plaintiffs? tained joins in this notice of removal”. defendants, d. As between the three signed notice of removal was entity behalf of had operational control Service, Tri-State decision-making Oilfield Inc. its responsibility counsel record, site, signature but contains no blank in put entity well which would un- Likewise, behalf of R duty defendant & H. der operations to conduct its with truth alleged of the facts regard safety the notice of due for the of others and removal attested gross negligence affidavit. render it for a liable case, aggregation in this entity a. “That finding? If disregard reckless proper determining never and Farrar has been was Farrar served, the issue of whether the amount in contro- not before the Farrar was then versy jurisdiction requirement for has punitive and no district court satisfied”; been could be awarded. compensato- b. their for ‘While have been jurisdictional

All of these facts left ry separate divisible, damages are and the essentially there unresolved. While was court, giving due to na- consideration the “hearing” magis- sort before some purpose punitive damages, ture con- and permit- judge parties trate at which the were cannot be as to cludes that same said argue positions, transcript no to ted plaintiffs’ punitive damages Puni- claim. party no hearing made and sought wrong tive are for a any testimony to tendered makes reference have a to the who thus common judge hearing. magistrate at that The made punitive damages and undivided interest specific findings of nor no fact conclusions award”; and law, Overrul- simply but entered an “Order judge’s “magistrate implic- e. That stated: ing Motion to Remand” which aggregated punitive conclusion having heard The court and considered $50,000 damages could well exceed can cer- remand, plaintiffs’ briefs and motion tainly ‘clearly erro- not be characterized arguments of counsel and authorities cited ‘contrary (Emphasis to law’.” neous’ or plaintiff main- finds that each individual added.) punitive action tains cause of for dam- statutory The district court offered ages under circumstances and and that any support of these conclu- common law for motion to remand authorities the sions. (Citing well and should be denied. taken lawsuit, During pendency of this cases.) statutory Mississippi Legislature adopted magistrate judge’s The cases cited provision dealing with two district court memorandum were federal (Supp.1994). The 11-1-65 Ann. Miss.Code (one published) published, one not decisions made provisions relevant that statute were Mississippi from District Southern expressly applicable this and all other jurisdictional dealing with amounts declar pending July as of 1993. Nonethe- eases judgment atory by actions an insurance car less, magistrate judge’s nor order neither against there rier its insured where is the evaluates the im- the district court’s order damage claim based on potential of a jurisdiction Mississippi pact of statute on dealing carrier in with the by bad faith opinion majority in this The makes case. Hilbun, Ins. claim. Allstate Co. to this statute stat- passing reference (S.D.Miss.1988), F.Supp. Atlanta regard- law ing that it “codified” J90-0459(L) (S.D.Miss. Jones, No. Co. Cas. damages. majority, ing punitive The howev- 11, 1991). by ease cited Feb. third er, to the gives no substantive consideration judge, Lailhengue v. Mobil magistrate Oil provisions this statute in arriv- terms and (E.D.La.1991), Corp-, F.Supp. has Mississippi regards ing at conclusions that its present case some factual similarities damages as an “individual award (claims explosion refinery from that, only,” regard without function residents), casualty nearby to a relates compensatory damage, puni- showing of in Louisiana and would be which occurred satisfy juris- relied tives can be punitive damages governed by law. Louisiana I case. Because dictional amount this requires federal courts to believe that Erie plaintiffs applied for review of the law in cases give controlling effect to state judge’s ruling by the magistrate district solely jurisdiction could based deciding magis- where our judge. to review I order, diversity citizenship, and because on judge’s court based trate district Mississippi punitive damage stat- believe the following conclusions of its decision on interpreted support possibly ute cannot law: party the conclusion reached cial against pu- condition of whom case, Finally I turn to a detailed examination nitive damages sought. the Mis- sissippi punitive damages that statute.17 on statute calls for a review the court to determine the rea- actually changes Section 11-1-65 Missis- sonableness of the and re- sippi important ways. in at law least two quires “mitigation” the court to consider importantly, First most statute re- punitive damages by considering penal- civil quires proof convincing “clear evi- against ties levied the same dence” of the conduct which is made the conduct in other actions.18 subject punitive damages. of While this proof heightened requirement may important not be It is also to note what the Mis- by availability sissippi punitive damages determinative itself of the on statute does not case, punitive damages clearly say. in this indi- in any- Nowhere the statute is there recovery cates punitive damages thing says that that that only there be shall one by will proof single punitive be tested over and above damages arising claim for out applicable previously preponderance any one set circumstances.19 There is Second, Mississippi nothing evidence test. stat- in says the statute that that if more punitive damages contemplates ute on person a bi- than compensatory one sustains dam- process dealing ages casualty, furcated with actual or from a all persons of such shall compensatory damages, hand, joint on the one against have a or common claim punitive damages, party on guilty punitive damage the other. Note that conduct. expressly requires that any statute the trier in Nowhere the statute is language there of fact first says “shall determine whether punitive damage com- that a award pensatory damages are to be awarded in per would be on a capita shared basis nor on amount, addressing any pro what before damage issues rated basis between several punitive damages”. § related to parties 11—1— who sustain compensatory dam- 65(l)(b) added). (emphasis age It further single casualty. states out of a To the con- that “if if’ compensatory damages trary, Mississippi the overall thrust of the awarded, have been punitive the court shall com- statute on is that each evidentiary claimant, hearing mence an proves determine who that he suffered com- punitive damages may whether pensatory damages be proves by consid- and who “clear ered. If pu- then determines that and convincing” evidence that damages may nitive submitted to authorizing be the trier has conduct committed the recov- fact, ery then the trier of fact punitive damages, determines is entitled to a “whether to award jury and in punitive damage submission to the of a 1—65(l)(d). claim; § subject what amount”. In addi- to the court’s review of 11— tion, Mississippi expressly statute jury’s finding, defines reasonableness may factors which the trier recovery of fact consider individual is entitled to the of those determining in punitive punitive Furthermore, damages. whether to award nowhere thereof, damages and the amounts which in- does the use “joint”, statute “com- words mon”, “collective”, clude the nature and extent of key sus- which are the words claimant, by tained upon as well as the finan- by relied the district court and the Corlew, (iii) generally 17. See Only John F. An punitive Historical one award for dam- Damages Mississippi, Overview Punitive in ages may against made be a defendant for the (1994). Miss.LJ. 583 act, decision, same omission or course of con- duct. statutory provisions, 18. While these last two (H.B. Session, 1993). Regular No. But specifying computing to be in factors considered (iii) subpart Judiciary was deleted punitive damages, may applicable not be to this appear Committee and does not in final bill case, they binding are indeed codifications of mind, passed. my To this is conclusive that See, precedent. Mississippi e.g., Trucking C & C Legislature multiple intended that there Smith, (Miss. 1992). Co. v. 612 So.2d 1092 punitive damages, alleg- claims for such as those bill, edly arising explosion Interestingly, original of the well out this case. house ultimately became 11-1-65 contained the fol- 3(d)(iii): lowing provision in Section punitive justify of all award of a amount of dam- aggregation panel plaintiffs. ages no all but with basis statute nor damage Likewise, Supreme Mississippi common law as to the formula Mississippi there is lump which such sum award involving facts similar to mass would case Court amongst multiple plain- where the divided the various this case tort situation involved policy tiffs. best say has Some that the Mississippi Supreme Court concluded lump punitive damage jointness, eollectiveness or divide sum there some per commonality multiple capita award on a basis and others the claims of the Accordingly, may say way lump from best to divide a such actions. punitive damage pro- sum award is my Mississippi cases and stat- review the portion the amount of each individual on I come to fol- ute compensatory damages claimant’s lowing conclusions: But, damages. compensatory total of all law, Mississippi a. Under dam- event, legislative the choice is a choice appurtenant ages dependent Legislature which the did compensa- recovery of a to the existence Mississippi punitive damage make in the tory damages;20 statute; it is a courts choice the express holding an of the b. Absent need reach if read the Missis- never punitive Mississippi Supreme Court sippi separate jury requiring as statute multiple damage claims of are to findings as to the of each joint basis, a be determined on or common suit, plaintiff multi-plaintiff individual in a puni- reading Mississippi the plain the say. plainly as it to so seems damage contemplates that the tive statute punitive damage claim claimant will each This Each of the is not class action. distinct, separate just as the com- joined original plaintiffs have com- pensatory damage that claimant claims of respective to plaint in each of their names distinct; separate are clearly recognizes the assert what respective procedure “separate and distin-

c. Given the bifurcated compensatory guishable” compensatory damages. determining damages first determining allegations regarding pu- Had no punitive damages, and then there been Snyder by Mississippi puni- nitive v. Harris would which is mandated the statute, clearly controlling law and damage plaintiff in a be the removal tive each to court multi-plaintiff case who found to have from state court federal would plaintiff compen- to each whose compensatory damage would be valid as suffered satory damages likely separate to were determined to entitled submission his $50,000. original the face of punitive damages, claim for rather than a exceed certainly single complaint in state does not blanket submission of a issue of court compensatory plaintiffs; expressly quantify to dam- punitive damages as all such these otherwise, jury ages plaintiff and the burden there- would be de- each removing opportunity upon fore fell defendants prived to evaluate the by preponderance the evi- differences in character and amounts of demonstrate plain- damage dence nature and extent each compensatory which would almost certainly injuries likely amount of com- multiple plain- tiff’s exist between the injuries. damages Mississippi punitive pensatory for such tiffs and which the satisfy wholly this bur- damage requires defendants failed statute to be considered Rather, puni- focused the fixing claim of den. defendants as an element of each hand, judge and the magistrate attention of the damages. tive On other allegations re- judge general on the single of a issue district blanket submission garding punitive damages. again, Here punitive damages, all as inferred original complaint lump face of contained majority, result in a sum would statute, panel sissippi punitive damages re- same conclusion was reached another 20. This Supreme Mississippi Court cases panel v. viewed several of this court in case of Greer Burk hardt, Inc., (5th Cir.1995), that "in a case of zero actual and concluded 58 F.3d 1070 where does legal proceedings damages, we believe that law which reached on facts and damages," any punitive judgment prior adoption not allow him of Mis- final express allegation puni- as to amount of plaintiff tive which each was claim- America, UNITED STATES of and, therefore, ing; burden fell Plaintiff-Appellee, again

removing defendants establish preponderance quan- that the the evidence

tum which each FLORES, Defendant-Appellant. Manuel reasonably expect pro- could to receive would controversy exceeding duce America, $50,000 UNITED STATES of compensatory when added damage plaintiff. Plaintiff-Appellee, respective This wholly burden the failed to defendants satis- Rather, fy. removing argued defendants

and the district concluded that GARZA, Defendant-Appellant. Juan Raul “separate are not and divisible” as plaintiff, to each but rather constitutes some 93-7388, Nos. 93-7662. “single sort of a wrong” claim for which all “a have common and undi- Appeals, United Court of States Additionally, vided interest”. the district Circuit. Fifth “implicit court concluded that the conclusion” magistrate judge “that aggregated Sept. $50,000” damages could well exceed “clearly was not All erroneous”. of these

determinations were made the district simply upon conclusory allega- “based complaint original

tions” or the notice panel majority recog- removal which the proper. brushing

nizes was not But aside applying trial court’s errors “com-

mon of interpreting sense” to the task “the

face of complaint”, panel majority (1)

concludes: [singular] “the total claim

punitive damages [plural] likely is more than $50,000

not to be for or more” and “if the

plaintiffs [plural] were successful

[plural] punitive damages [plural] claim [sin-

gular], they [plural] would collect more than

$50,000”. my opinion, those conclusions are in direct conflict with

Mississippi statutory and ease law in that

they purport plaintiffs participate to make all claim; single punitive damage

in one

through labeling the semantical device of

punitive damage claim collective claim for

jurisdictional purposes, panel amount ma-

jority avoids the clear mandate of the United Supreme that in involving

States Court suits

multiple jurisdictional plaintiffs, the plaintiff,

is to be determined as with-

out aggregating among plaintiffs. respectfully

I dissent. notes on its Improve- the Judicial defendants, 1990, alleges that one of the part Farrar Oilfield of ments Act as codified in 28 at (Farrar"), 1367, Equipment Service and § Co. has its U.S.C. overrules Zahn in class action principal place context), Mississippi. suggestion rehearing of business in If that en banc for filed. so, diversity were there would be no citizen- 1332(c)(1) ship. (deeming See 28 U.S.C. "citi- Pinel, 594, 596, 4.See v. Pinel 240 U.S. 36 S.Ct. zenship" corporations to be either state of 416, 416, (1916) (no 60 aggregation L.Ed. 817 incorporation state or where defendant has its arising claims an to shares of estate from one business). principal defendants, place of will); Bank, 39, Troy 222 U.S. at 32 at S.Ct. 9. however, argued in the district court that Far- (aggregation allowed for enforcement of state principal place Mississip- rar's of business is not law vender's lien as that claim was And, pi. making explicit findings while undivided); Field, 464, 479-80, Clay v. 138 U.S. fact, implicitly agreed by the district court find- 419, 425, (1891) (no 11 34 S.Ct. L.Ed. 1044 ing subject-matter jurisdiction. party No contin- aggregation partnership for claim of dower and press Accordingly, ues to this issue. while we land); profits arising Eagle from one tract of Star duty recognize jurisdiction our to determine sua Maltes, 778, Ins. v.Co. 313 F.2d 780 Cir. sponte, necessary, Mosley Cozby, if see v. 813 1963) rule); (examining general generally see 1 (5th Cir.1987) curiam), (per F.2d 659 we see no James W. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice question implicit finding. reason ¶ 0.97[3], (2d ed.1995) (“Basically, aggre at 917 gation is allowed when the unite to (In Labs.), ‘common,’ 'joint,' 'integrated' But see Free v. Abbott Labs. re Abbott assert a or ‘undi (5th Cir.1995) (holding right.”). 51 F.3d 524 that under a vided 1331 long factor that courts have Another generally agree that Courts “integrat is com right must be whether claim plaintiffs’ used determine claims ed,” respective rights meaning that separate apportionment is the mon legal same source. damages arise from the likely integrat claim more award. A is Gentry, U.S. Ry. Pac. Texas & See if has no interest ed the defendant 362-63, 16 41 L.Ed. S.Ct. plaint among of an apportionment award (1896) (holding aggregation proper where iffs.7 one under “all claimed course, Plaintiffs, strong have title”).5 this stan application same interests in the eventual distribution history-laden notion depends upon the dard awards, separability of a the ultimate cause constitutes an individual what integrated quality. its does not defeat Therefore, claim step first is necessary action.6 “Occasionally, plaintiffs seek enforce configuration examination See, separable amongst e.g., interest at issue. Asociación common right state-law cases, o Escala na Pequeña Pescadores common Nacional de themselves. such (ANPAC) Dow plaintiffs’ de Colombia Artesanales interest vis-a-vis the ture S.A., Quimica 988 F.2d de Colombia aggregation prop defendant dictates (5th Cir.1993) (examining state Texas ¶ 0.97[3], 563-64 MooRE, supra, 921.8 at er.” had fishermen law to determine whether fishing right stock property common B. — denied, spill), U.S. harmed oil cert. mind, Keeping we must these standards —, 126 L.Ed.2d joint dam- whether ”). decide (hereinafter Again, purpose “ANPAC present a united ages under law inquiry is to whether of this determine

Notes

notes individual’s public. regard rights for the assessing only is the defen- harm relevant 308, Wright, v. 524 So.2d Estate McGowan wrongdoing.12 dant’s (Miss.1988); v. see also Wesson United general Finally, the rule is that a Cir.1995) (5th States, 48 899-900 F.3d right plaintiff does not have a claim of (examining damages under punitive nature of always and “it is within law). Mississippi’s legislature re- Mississippi judge jury the discretion of the or trial law, fully cently codified view Page al., withhold them.” W. et Keeton July 1994. See Miss.Code effective on the of Torts Prosser Keeton law (Supp.1994). 11-1-65 Ann. 1984); 2,§ at ed. see Wirtz Swit Punitive (Miss.1991) (“The zer, 775, 783 586 So.2d collective; fundamentally are therefore punitive damages, along with the award of by punishing protect society purpose such, [sic] amount of within the discretion Id.; deterring wrongdoing. see fact.”). words, In other trier supra, §§ 2.0 2.2 Redden, Sohlueter & not itself an claim for policies pu (examining purposes behind Hence, independent tort. it is one damages). Their focus is nitive exemplary unique nature of these instead, plaintiff; tai the award is individual exhibit some the charac awards wrongdo wealth and lored defendant’s separate right. claim of teristics of Ins. ing. Andrew Jackson Co. See Life (Miss.1990) Williams, 566 So.2d C. juries may (examining consider factors that Accordingly, while quantum of determining “non-aggre neatly into either the do fall award); § 11-1- see also Miss.Code Ann. undivid caselaw or the “common and gation” consider). 65(l)(e) jury to (listing factors for unique nature of exception, the ed interest” ac are meant to benefits of award Mississippi, requires, at least these awards society. crue

Case Details

Case Name: Barbara Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Company, Farrar Oilfield Service and Equipment Co., and Tri-State Oil Services, Inc., Tri-State Oil Services, Inc.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Aug 29, 1995

Citation: 63 F.3d 1326

Docket Number: 94-60444

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.