Ard v. Transcontinental Gas ( 1998 )


Menu:
  •                        REVISED, May 8, 1998
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    For the Fifth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 97-30148
    ___________________________
    GERALDINE ARD; LILLIE ATKINS; ANTHONY BANKS; MARY BANKS,
    individually and as natural tutrix of her minor children, Earnest
    Banks and Travis Thompson; ROOSEVELT BANKS; BERNICE       BOND; JOE
    BROWN; OTIS BURTON; CLARA BUTLER; FRED BUTLER, JR.; GEORGIA BUTLER,
    individually and as natural tutrix of her minor children, Latilda
    Butler and Ledell Butler; PHYLLIS BUTLER, individually and as
    natural tutrix of her minor children, Brice Butler and Travis
    Butler; WILLIE PAUL BUTLER; CHELIS CAIN; JIMMIE COLEMAN; LOUJ
    COLEMAN; JOHN COLEMAN; ALICENA COLEMAN; JOSEPH COLEMAN; SAMUEL
    COLEMAN; EDIS COLEMAN; SYLVIA COLEMAN, individually and as natural
    tutrix of her minor child, Travis Duncan; ZOLA COLEMAN,
    individually and as natural tutrix of her minor children, Broderick
    Coleman and Kendra Coleman; DOROTHY DONAHUE; DEBRA DUNN,
    individually and as natural tutrix of her minor children, Joseph
    Dunn, Tiffany Dunn and Brittany Dunn; EARL FOREMAN; LISA FOREMAN;
    SHIRLEY FOREMAN, individually and as natural tutrix of her minor
    children, Shameka Foreman, Theressa Foreman, and Earl Foreman, Jr.;
    ELOISE FOSKEY; TERA FOX, individually and as natural tutrix of her
    minor child, Damon Fox; CATHERINE GLASS, individually and as
    natural tutrix of her minor child, Chandra Glass; MARY GILMORE,
    individually and as natural tutrix of her minor children, Datrice
    Gilmore, Laketha Gilmore, Mona Gilmore and Lake Gilmore; STANLEY
    GORDON; FELTON HALL; WARREANER HALL, individually and as natural
    tutor of his minor child, Alisha Bidon; PRISCILLA HALL,
    individually and as natural tutrix of her minor children, Lavert
    Hall and Trendale Hall; JANICE HAMLER, individually and as natural
    tutrix of her minor children, Aleisha Hamler and Gebrea Hamler;
    MARTHA HAMLER, individually and as natural tutrix of her minor
    children, Kaneka Hamler, Dwoyne Atkins, Daquarius Hamler and
    Sheilia Hamler; SHARON D. HENDERSON; JEFF HITCHEN; FLOYD HITCHEN;
    ROSE HITCHEN, individually and as natural tutrix of her minor
    children, Alex D. Hitchen and Floyd Hitchen, Jr.; ARISE HITCHEN,
    individually and as natural tutrix of her minor child, Tyeka
    Hitchen; DAMITA HITCHENS, individually and as natural tutrix of her
    minor child, Michael Holland, Jr.; EDWARD HITCHEN; HELEN HITCHEN,
    individually and as natural tutrix of her minor child, Lenora
    Hitchen; RENA HITCHENS; TIRRELL HARRELL; DEDRIC HARRELL; ELLISON
    HARRELL; KIMBERLY HOLLINS; ROBERT HITCHENS; ELIZABETH HITCHENS;
    BUNION HOLLAND; LEOLA HOLLAND, individually and as natural tutrix
    of her minor children, Danielle Holland, Denise Holland, Delores
    Holland and Stafford Holland, Jr.; HELEN HOLMES, individually and
    as natural tutrix of her minor child, Randy Holmes; RIVERS HOLMES;
    MIRQUIE HOLMES, individually and as natural tutrix of her minor
    children, A. J. Jackson and Wanell Armstrong; LEOLA HOOFKIN;
    DARLENE HORTON; ERIC HUGHES; JOHN L. HUGHES; MELVIN HUGHES; SARAH
    HUGHES; PERCY HUTSON; WILMETA HUTSON, individually and as natural
    tutrix of her minor child, Percy Hutson, Jr.; ANNA AUGUSTA JACKSON;
    GLENDA C. JACKSON, individually and as natural tutrix of her minor
    children, Dakeithi Jackson, Trenise Jackson and Kimberly Jackson;
    CLARETHA JAMES, individually and as natural tutrix of her minor
    children, Lenche Carter and Quenche Carter; CHARLIE JARRELL; CURTIS
    JENKINS, JR.; MARIE JENKINS, individually and as natural tutrix of
    her minor children, Mark Jenkins and Curtis Jenkins, III; FRANCIS
    JOHNSON; LEVY JOHNSON; LEVY JOHNSON, JR., individually and as
    natural tutor of his minor child, Chenea Johnson; KENNY JOHNSON;
    LINDA V. JOHNSON, individually and as natural tutrix of her minor
    children, Linda Charlene Johnson and Victoria Johnson; LOUISE M.
    JOHNSON, individually and as natural tutrix of her minor children
    Dwola Johnson and Michael Johnson; MINNIE JOHNSON; NORWOOD JOHNSON;
    VANESSA JOHNSON, individually and as natural tutrix of her minor
    children, Quentin Johnson and Jeffrey Johnson; WILLIE JOHNSON;
    DORIS JYLES, individually and as natural tutrix of her minor
    children, Derrick Jyles, Yasmine Jyles and LaQuinton Jyles;
    EARNESTINE JYLES, individually and as natural tutrix of her minor
    children, Lance Jyles, Jacqueline Jyles and Jacky Jyles; HERBERT
    JYLES; JOSEPH JYLES; LEVERSE JYLES, JR.; RONNIE JYLES; SHEILA
    JYLES, individually and as natural tutrix of her minor children,
    Steaven Porter, Sheena Porter, Paul Porter and Jessica Porter;
    SYLVIA M. JYLES, individually and as natural tutrix of her minor
    children, Christi Jyles, Walter Jyles, Laquhea Jyles and Jacqtta
    Jyles; MARY KEMP, individually and as natural tutrix of her minor
    child, Chester Kemp; SONIA KINZEY, individually and as natural
    tutrix of her minor child, Laquita Knox; DOROTHY KNOX, individually
    and as natural tutrix of her minor children, Felix Knox, Jr.,
    Deborah Ann Knox and Demetria Knox; FELIX SR. KNOX; MARVIN LEE,
    individually and as natural tutor of his minor children, Marvin
    Lee, Jr. and Shemka Jyles; SHERRI LEE; BELINDA LONDON, individually
    and as natural tutrix of her minor children, Brittney London and
    Roneca London; FRED LONDON, JR.; JOE JAMES LONDON; LILLIE ROSE
    LONDON; LORETTA LONDON, individually and as natural tutrix of her
    minor child, Tyneshia London; JAMES MACK; IDELL MASON, individually
    and as natural tutrix of her minor children, Katressa Mason,
    Heather Mason, Dairius Mason and Nadia Mason; NED MAYBERRY; MARY
    MAYBERRY; LOIS MCCARTNEY; LEANDEROUS MCCLENDON; ANNETTE MCCLENDON,
    individually and as natural tutrix of her minor children,
    Leanderous McClendon, Jr., Lakisha McClendon and Temeka McClendon;
    ROBERT MCCLENDON; PATRICIA MCCLENDON, individually and as natural
    tutrix of her minor child, Shanankeia McClendon; SHIRLEY MCCLENDON,
    individually and as natural tutrix of her minor child, Tyneisha
    McClendon; VERNON MCMORRIS, JR.; LINDA K. PATTERSON, individually
    and as natural tutrix of her minor children, Tiffany Patterson,
    Darcell Rheams and Ernest Rheams; DERRY MITCHELL; DEBBIE PORTER,
    individually and as natural tutrix of her minor child, Andra
    Porter; ELI PORTER; SARAH PORTER; FANNIE PORTER; GARY PORTER; JERRY
    PORTER; MARY PORTER, individually and as natural tutrix of her
    minor child, Jerrica Porter; THOMAS J. PORTER; JONESNESE PORTER,
    individually and as natural tutrix of her minor children, Maranda
    Porter, Nzinga Porter, Thomas Porter, Jr., Jarod Porter, Shandron
    Porter, Ashley Porter and Myran Porter; WILLIE PORTER, individually
    2
    and as natural tutor of his minor children, Kimberly Porter,
    Jeremiah Porter, Danielle Porter, Nakia Porter and Daniel Porter;
    ROBERT REESE, individually and as natural tutor of his minor child,
    Octavia Reese; CLARA RINGO; JAMES RINGO; CAROLYN RINGO,
    individually and as natural tutrix of her minor children, Yolanda
    Ringo and James Ringo, Jr.; MILDRED RINGO, individually and as
    natural tutrix of her minor children, Terry Ringo and Tammy Ringo;
    CARRIE ROBERTSON, individually and as natural tutrix of her minor
    child, Jerome Robertson; GERTRUDE ROBINSON, individually and as
    natural tutrix of her minor children, Chyneikah Robinson, Candis
    Robinson, Corie Robinson, Jessica Robinson, Clarence Robinson and
    Robert Robinson; CHANEY ROBERTSON, JR.; BERTHA LEE ROBERTSON,
    individually and as natural tutrix of her minor child, Joseph
    Robertson; RUBY ROBERTSON, individually and as natural tutrix of
    her minor children, Lionel Jyles and Herbert Jyles; VERA ROBINSON,
    individually and as natural tutrix of her minor child, Allen
    Robinson; EMANUEL ROSS; MELVIN ROSS; DELORIS H. SCOTT, individually
    and as natural tutrix of her minor child, Joseph Scott; ROOSEVELT
    SCOTT; JENNIFER SCOTT, individually and as natural tutrix of her
    minor child, Brianna Scott; JOHN E. SCOTT, individually and as
    natural tutor of his minor child, John Scott; GUS SHROPSHIRE; SALLY
    SHROPSHIRE, individually and as natural tutrix of her minor child,
    Willie Shropshire; PAMELA SIMMONS, individually and as natural
    tutrix of her minor children, La'Clarence Simmons and D'Trentta
    Simmons; COLUMBUS SMALL; ARIZOLA SPEARS, individually and as
    natural tutrix of her minor child, Ashley Spears; WENDELL C.
    STEWART, individually and as natural tutor of his minor children,
    Shanderrecca Stewart and Wendolyn Stewart; GLORIA TANNER;
    GLORISTINE T. TANNER; ANDREA TAYLOR, individually and as natural
    tutrix of her minor child, Ashley Taylor; BARBARA TAYLOR,
    individually and as natural tutrix of her minor children, Sheena
    Taylor and Shayna Taylor; EMMITT TAYLOR, JR.; PAMELA TAYLOR; MARTHA
    H. THOMPSON; MELVINA TAYLOR; ROBERT TAYLOR; HARRIET TAYLOR,
    individually and as natural tutrix of her minor children, Darrick
    Taylor, Robert Taylor, Jr., and Sharon Taylor; SHARON TAYLOR;
    BOBBIE JEAN TILLIS, individually and as natural tutrix of her minor
    children, Brikiyok Tillis and Alberta Tillis; LENARD TUCKER; MITTIE
    M. TUCKER; MARY LOUISE TURNER, individually and as natural tutrix
    of her minor children, Carlos Turner, Lee Turner and Donrico
    Turner; LYLIE BELL WALLACE; JARON WHITE, individually and as
    natural tutor of his minor child, Deionte White; VERIA C. WHITE,
    individually and as natural tutrix of her minor children, Jaworsky
    White and Deyondra White; WILLIE WHITE; LASHEL WILLIAMS,
    individually and as      natural tutrix of her minor children,
    Christopher Williams and Dowlin Williams; EMMA WRIGHT; S. A.
    WRIGHT; LOUISE WRIGHT; BESSIE WYRE, individually and as natural
    tutrix of her minor children, Clifford Wyre and Ashley Wyre; GERALD
    WYRE; LEROY WYRE, individually and as natural tutor of his minor
    child, Sharoy Wyre; ANGELA H. WRIGHT, individually and as natural
    tutrix of her minor children, Brady Holmes and Arabia Wright;
    MATTIE H. WYRE, individually and as natural tutrix of her minor
    child, Letisha Pitt; QUAQUITTA MASON; BOBBY JACKSON; DEMETRIA
    JACKSON, individually and as natural tutrix of her minor children,
    Niescha Jackson, Lakesha Jackson, Bobby Jackson, Jr., Latrisa
    3
    Jackson and Demetrius Jackson; MARION MYLES; ALEISHA MYLES; MELLA
    WILLIAMS, individually and as natural tutrix of her minor children,
    Nicholas Williams and Kendrick Williams; BRIDGET S. KNIGHTEN; ORA
    L. KNIGHTEN; GLORIA COLLINS, individually and on behalf of her
    deceased husband, Charles Collins, and as natural tutrix of her
    minor children, Kendra Collins and Kelli Collins,
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    VERSUS
    TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE CORPORATION,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ___________________________________________________
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    For the Middle District of Louisiana
    ___________________________________________________
    April 20, 1998
    Before DAVIS, JONES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge:
    Geraldine Ard and approximately 350 other plaintiffs challenge
    the district court’s order refusing to remand this case to the
    state court.       The district court determined that the § 1332
    jurisdictional amount was met by aggregating the punitive damage
    claims.    We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent
    with this opinion.
    I.
    Geraldine Ard initially filed suit against Transcontinental
    Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) in Louisiana state court for
    damages   she   suffered   as    a    result    of   a    natural   gas   pipeline
    explosion.      The natural gas pipeline was owned and operated by
    Transco in St. Helena Parish.                Approximately 350 individuals,
    including    several   minors,       permissively        joined   Ard’s   suit   as
    4
    plaintiffs.      The Plaintiffs sought both compensatory and punitive
    damages.   The Plaintiffs submitted affidavits to the state court
    executed by each individual plaintiff which stipulated that each of
    their claims was less than $50,000, and that they would not attempt
    to recover an amount in excess of $50,000.          In an ex parte order,
    the state court accepted the stipulations and directed that they
    were considered binding on each plaintiff.
    Transco removed the case to federal district court, asserting
    jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship under 18 U.S.C.
    § 1332.    The Plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court,
    alleging that the jurisdictional amount was not satisfied due to
    the state court “stipulations” regarding damages.            Transco argued
    that the punitive damages of all plaintiffs could be aggregated for
    purposes of determining the amount in controversy under § 1332. In
    the alternative, Transco argued that the Plaintiffs’ affidavits
    limiting their recovery were legally insufficient, or in the
    further alternative, that at least one plaintiff’s claim exceeded
    $50,000    and    the   court   was   able   to   exercise    supplemental
    jurisdiction over the remaining claims.
    The district court denied the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, on
    grounds that the punitive damage claims of all Plaintiffs could be
    aggregated for purposes of determining the amount in controversy.
    The district court concluded that the aggregated amount exceeded
    the $50,000 jurisdictional requirement.1          The district court then
    1
    This cause of action arose before the new amount in
    controversy requirement of $75,000 went into effect.        Federal
    Courts Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-317, 110 Stat. 3847
    (1996).
    5
    certified its interlocutory order denying the motion to remand as
    suitable for appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).           On February 12,
    1997, this court granted the Plaintiffs’ Petition for Permission to
    Appeal the interlocutory order.
    II.
    This court’s jurisdiction derives from the district court’s
    certification of its interlocutory order denying the motion to
    remand as suitable for appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).               Our
    jurisdiction is therefore limited to the review of the district
    court's determination that the Plaintiffs' punitive damage claims
    can be aggregated for the purpose of determining jurisdictional
    amount.
    A district court’s denial of a motion to remand is reviewed de
    novo.   Vasquez v. Alto Bonito Gravel Plant Corp., 
    56 F.3d 689
    , 692
    (5th Cir. 1995).
    Although   the   Supreme   Court   has   never   considered   whether
    punitive damage claims from separate plaintiffs may be aggregated
    for determinations of jurisdictional amount, it has considered
    whether claims in general can be aggregated.            See 14A Wright,
    Miller and Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3705 (1985).
    In Snyder v. Harris, the Court considered “whether separate and
    distinct claims presented by and for various claimants in a class
    action may be added together to provide the $10,000 jurisdictional
    amount in controversy.”     
    394 U.S. 332
    , 333 (1969).         The Snyder
    Court upheld the settled rule that “the separate and distinct
    claims of two or more plaintiffs cannot be aggregated in order to
    satisfy the jurisdictional amount requirement.”         
    Id. at 335.
       The
    6
    Court reaffirmed this principle in later cases. See, e.g., Zahn v.
    International Paper Co., 
    414 U.S. 291
    (1973) (reaffirming Snyder
    and expanding the nonaggregation rule such that each plaintiff must
    independently reach the jurisdictional amount).2
    The circuits have not taken a consistent position on this
    question of whether the punitive damages claimed by multiple
    plaintiffs can be aggregated, and the entire amount allocated to
    each plaintiff, for the purpose of determining jurisdictional
    amount.     The   Second   Circuit   held   that   punitives   may   not   be
    aggregated because “the class members’ claims are ‘separate and
    distinct.’”   Gilman v. BHC Securities, Inc., 
    104 F.3d 1418
    , 1430
    (2d Cir. 1997)).    The Seventh Circuit followed the same reasoning
    in Anthony v. Security Pacific Financial Services.             
    75 F.3d 311
    (7th Cir. 1996).     The panel concluded that “[t]he plaintiffs in
    this case would have to recover on average at least $47,118.36 in
    punitive damages to satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 1332.”         
    Id. at 315.
       It is
    clear, therefore, that the panel rejected the possibility of
    aggregating the plaintiffs’ punitive damage claims in order to
    satisfy the jurisdictional amount requirement.3
    The Eleventh Circuit reached the opposite result in Tapscott
    2
    Although it is not important for our analysis, this Circuit
    has recognized that Zahn’s holding that each plaintiff must
    independently satisfy the jurisdictional amount has been overruled
    due to congressional amendment of 28 U.S.C. § 1367. See In Re
    Abbott Laboratories, 
    51 F.3d 524
    , 529 (5th Cir. 1995). Neither
    this holding nor the premise which underlies it affects our
    analysis in this case.
    3
    For a somewhat analogous treatment of the aggregation
    question, see Goldberg v. CPC International, Inc., in which the
    Ninth Circuit held that the attorney’s fees claimed by members of
    a class action cannot be aggregated for purposes of determining the
    jurisdictional amount. 
    678 F.2d 1365
    , 1367 (9th Cir. 1982).
    7
    v. MS Dealer Service Corp.                
    77 F.3d 1353
    (11th Cir. 1996).           In
    Tapscott, it held that due to the nature of punitive damages under
    Alabama law and the particular facts at issue, punitive damages
    were properly aggregated.          
    Id. at 1358-59.
    Two panels in our own circuit took different approaches to
    deciding    whether    to     aggregate         punitive    damages    and     reached
    different results.          In Lindsey v. Alabama Telephone Co., the
    plaintiffs brought a class action under Alabama law against two
    telephone companies.          
    576 F.2d 593
    , 593 (5th Cir. 1978).                  The
    plaintiff class alleged that the defendants wrongfully collected
    deposits    by    threatening        to     discontinue     service,     wrongfully
    discontinued services, and misrepresented their authority to charge
    deposits.    
    Id. at 593.
         The panel’s jurisdictional analysis began
    with a recitation of the Supreme Court rule that the claims of
    class     plaintiffs    may     not        be    aggregated     to     satisfy    the
    jurisdictional amount.         
    Id. at 594
    (citing Snyder v. Harris, 
    394 U.S. 332
    (1969)).
    The panel then considered the plaintiffs’ claims to see
    whether the $10,000 jurisdictional amount was met.                    The plaintiffs
    claimed      $2,000    in   compensatory         damages.      The     class   sought
    $1,000,000 in punitive damages so that the total amount claimed was
    $1,002,000.      In holding that the plaintiffs had failed to allege
    jurisdictional     amount,     the    panel      stated    “[s]ignificantly,      the
    complaint nowhere alleges the number of persons in the class, an
    allegation that would have permitted the court to ascertain what
    dollar amount represents the ‘amount in controversy’ for each
    member of the class.”        
    Id. The panel
    concluded that the defendant
    8
    could not show that the class was small enough to result in a
    division of the damages that would result in each plaintiff meeting
    the jurisdictional amount, and that the district court therefore
    had no jurisdiction over the claim.                
    Id. Lindsey therefore
    applies Snyder's reasoning that compensatory
    damage claims cannot be aggregated for jurisdictional purposes to
    the context of punitive damage claims.
    In Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 
    63 F.3d 1326
    (5th Cir. 1995),
    this    court   held    that    the   nature       of    punitive     damages    under
    Mississippi law required that the punitive damage claim of all
    plaintiffs should be aggregated, and the entire amount allocated to
    each plaintiff, to determine the jurisdictional amount.                      In Allen,
    512    plaintiffs   joined      together      to    assert    tort     claims    in   a
    Mississippi     state    court      against    the       defendants    for     damages
    resulting from an explosion and release of toxic fumes.                         
    Id. at 1329.
        The   plaintiffs      sought     both     compensatory       and    punitive
    damages, but did not allege specific amounts of damages.                      
    Id. The action
       was   removed        to   federal        court    based     on     diversity
    jurisdiction.    In finding the requisite jurisdictional amount, the
    district court “reasoned that the aggregation of the potential
    punitive damages award was proper, as each plaintiff shared a
    common and undivided interest in the claim.”                  
    Id. The Allen
    panel held that under Mississippi law, punitive
    damages are “fundamentally collective,” the purpose of which is “to
    protect society by punishing and deterring wrongdoing.”                         
    Id. at 1333.
       The panel further concluded that in Mississippi, punitive
    damages are “not compensatory,” and therefore are “individual
    9
    awards in function only,” and that they are awarded at the judge’s
    discretion.     
    Id. at 1333.
        The panel concluded: “because of the
    collective scope of punitive damages and their nature as individual
    claims under Mississippi law, we hold that under Mississippi law
    the amount of such an alleged award is counted against each
    plaintiff’s required jurisdictional amount.”        
    Id. at 1335.
    The Allen panel emphasized, however, that its decision was
    driven by the peculiar nature of punitive damages under Mississippi
    state law.     In response to a Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion
    for Rehearing En Banc, the panel stated:
    the panel is of the unanimous view that the opinion in
    this case specifically reflects a result under the
    Mississippi law of punitive damages and is not to be
    construed as a comment on any similar case that might
    arise under the law of any other state.
    Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 
    70 F.3d 26
    , 26 (5th Cir. 1995).          It
    is therefore clear to us that Allen departs from Lindsey solely
    because   of    the   peculiar   nature   of   punitive   damages   under
    Mississippi law, and does not purport to establish a precedent for
    aggregation of punitive damage claims asserted under federal law or
    the law of any other state.
    In summary, Lindsey holds that ordinarily the punitive damage
    claims of multiple plaintiffs may not be aggregated for purposes of
    determining jurisdictional amount.        In Allen, the panel held that
    due to the peculiar nature of Mississippi law, it was appropriate
    to aggregate punitive damage claims of multiple plaintiffs and
    attribute the aggregated amount to each individual plaintiff.          It
    is unclear to us what Mississippi law regarding punitive damages
    drove the Allen panel to depart from Lindsey’s rule, but we find no
    10
    principle in Louisiana law regarding the nature of punitive damages
    that permits us to depart from Lindsey.   We therefore hold that in
    this case, the punitive damage claims of the multiple plaintiffs
    should not be aggregated, and once aggregated, attributed to each
    individual plaintiff for determinations of jurisdictional amount.
    We therefore disagree with the district court's conclusion
    that Plaintiffs' punitive damage claims can be aggregated for
    purposes of determining jurisdictional amount.     Accordingly, we
    remand this case to the district court for further proceedings
    consistent with this opinion.4
    REVERSED and REMANDED.
    4
    The Appellee also argues that some of the affidavits
    Plaintiffs filed purporting to limit each claim to less than the
    jurisdictional amount were not effective to accomplish this result
    and therefore the affidavits cannot defeat removal. The district
    court will have an opportunity to consider this argument on remand.
    11