Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_10-cv-00194/USCOURTS-ared-4_10-cv-00194-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition to Quiet Title

---

1

Based upon the Affidavit of Russell W. Miller, attached to MoPac’s motion for leave to

file an amended notice of removal, Anadarko E & P Company, LP, Anadarko Land Corp., and

Upland Industrial Development Company are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Anadarko Petroleum

Corporation. Accordingly, the Court will refer to these defendants as the “Anadarko

Defendants.” 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

WOOTEN BROS. BLUEGRASS, INC. PLAINTIFF

V. CASE NO. 4:10CV00194 JMM

MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD

COMPANY; ANADARKO E & P COMPANY, LP;

ANADARKO LAND CORP., AND UPLAND

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Pending are Plaintiff’s motion to remand, docket # 6 and Defendant Missouri Pacific

Railroad’s motion for leave to file an amended notice of removal, docket # 8. On February 22,

2010, Plaintiff filed a Petition to Quiet Title in Mineral Interests in the Circuit Court of Conway

County, Arkansas against Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. (“MoPac”), Anadarko E & P Company,

LP, Anadarko Land Corp., and Upland Industrial Development Company.1

On March 29, 2010, MoPac filed a timely notice of removal alleging diversity jurisdiction

and stating that “co-defendant has given its permission for this removal.” Plaintiff argues that

the removal is defective because the record does not contain a timely-filed statement on the

record from the Anadarko Defendants that they consent to the removal, the pleadings and the

Notice of Removal fail to state grounds for diversity jurisdiction, the record lacks any indication

of the citizenship of the Anadarko Defendants and MoPac failed to attach the state-court

Case 4:10-cv-00194-JMM Document 19 Filed 07/16/10 Page 1 of 2
summonses directed to the Anadarko Defendants. MoPac seeks leave of Court to file an

Amended Notice of Removal curing these defects.

Having reviewed the pleadings, the Court finds that removal was proper, diversity

jurisdiction exists between the parties and that the requested amendments should be allowed.

Any defects in the original Notice of Removal were technical in nature and did not deprive the

Court of jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to remand, docket # 6, is DENIED. 

Defendant MoPac’s motion for leave to file an amended notice of removal, docket # 8, is

GRANTED. Defendant may file its amended notice of removal within five (5) days of the entry

of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of July, 2010. 

______________________________

James M. Moody

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-00194-JMM Document 19 Filed 07/16/10 Page 2 of 2