Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06260/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06260-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JACK JUSTICE, Individually and ) 

d/b/a REAVIS DRUG; COTTlE'S ) 

INC., an Oklahoma corporation; ) 

PAULS VALLEY FARM AND RANCH ) 

SUPPLY, INC., an Oklahoma cor- ) 

poration; JERRY NORTON; LILLYN ) 

NORTON, d/b/a Norton's Jewelry; ) 

LAHOMA BECKTEL; STUFFLEBEANS, ) 

INC., an Oklahoma corporation; ) 

ROBERT T. RENNIE, JR.; DENSEL ) 

WILLIAMSON; BETTY WILLIAMSON, ) 

d/b/a WILLIAM'S FURNITURE; GARY ) 

ARCHER; LAVON ARCHER; DONNIE ) 

GREEN; MARY MAURINE BERRY, d/b/a) 

LEE'S CARPETLAND; EDWARD T. ) 

TILLERY; ALPHA EDWARDS, d/b/a ) 

ALPHA'S STYLE SHOP; LEONARD ) 

BLAINE BRUMLEY, d/b/a LOU'S SHOE) 

BOX; MARY JUSTICE; CRAIG CARSON;) 

DON COOK, d/b/a COOK & CARSON ) 

TV AND APPLIANCE; HARRELL ) 

DRISKILL, d/b/a INDIAN NATION ) 

SALES; JAMES McEUIN; WANDA ) 

McEUIN, d/b/a MAC'S STAINED ) 

GLASS AND BUILDER SUPPLY; TED ) 

BLEVINS; JOYCE BLEVINS, for ) 

themselves and for all other ) s~ilarly situated, ) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

ATCHI_SON 1 TOPEKA AND SANTA FE 

RAILWAY COMPANY, a Delaware 

corporation, successor in 

interest to GULF, COLORADO AND 

SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

. PILED Urutetf States r __ _ ..,.. '-'VUrt of Appeals 

.t enrh Cirruir: 

FEB 2 8 1991 

~OBERT L.HOECKE 

Clerk R 

No. 90-6260 

Appellate Case: 90-6260 Document: 01019726099 Date Filed: 02/28/1991 Page: 1 
Appeal from the United States District Court 

For the Western District of Oklahoma 

D.C. No. CIV-89-1096-R 

Submitted on the Briefs: 

Alan Agee, Brett Agee, and James w. Carlton, Jr., of Garvin & 

Agee, Pauls Valley Oklahoma, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. 

Hugh D. Rice, H. D. Binns, Jr., Robert J. Campbell, Jr., and 

Roberta Browning Fields of Rainey, Ross, Rice & Binns, Oklahoma 

City, Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellee. 

Before MCKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

MOORE, Circuit Judge. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6260 Document: 01019726099 Date Filed: 02/28/1991 Page: 2 
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellants Jack Justice, et al., plaintiffs in the trial 

court, appeal from the denial of their motion to remand either the 

entire case or at least the damages claims not meeting the 

jurisdictional amount to state court. They argue that the case 

was improperly removed from state court under 28 u.s.c. § 1441(c) 

and should be remanded. We affirm. 

Plaintiffs allege that defendant Atchison, Topeka and Santa 

Fe Railway Company's (AT&SF) railroad structures running through 

Pauls Valley, Oklahoma, caused their property to flood during 

heavy rains in 1987. They claim monetary damages due to AT&SF's 

negligent construction and maintenance of various railroad 

structures and seek to compel AT&SF to alter these structures 

because the railroad in its present state constitutes a continuing 

nuisance. Although originally filed in state court, the action 

was removed by AT&SF to the District Court for the Western 

District of Oklahoma. 

Resolution of this appeal involves the interpretation of 28 

u.s.c . § 144l(c), which states: 

Whenever a separate and independent claim or cause of 

action, which would be removable if sued upon alone, is 

joined with one or more otherwise non-removable claims 

or causes of action, the entire case may be removed and 

the district court may determine all issues therein, or, 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6260 Document: 01019726099 Date Filed: 02/28/1991 Page: 3 
in its discretion, may remand all matters not otherwise 

within its original jurisdiction. 

Plaintiffs argue that before reaching the § 144l(c) analysis, the 

28 U.S.C. § 1 332 minimum amount in controversy for all claims must 

be satisfied. They contend further that in the present case the 

jurisdictional amount could not be reached without aggregation of 

the plaintiffs' claims, which requires that the claims be common 

and not "separate and distinct." Snyder v. Harris, 394 u.s. 332 

(1969}; Zahn v. Int'l Paper Co., 414 U.S. 291 (1973). Plaintiffs 

argue that even if the cost of the injunctive relief to the 

defendant would exceed the statutory minimum under § 1332, 

aggregation of plaintiffs' claims must be resolved affirmatively 

before total detriment to the defendant can be considered, citing 

Lonnquist v. J.C. Penney Co,, 421 F.2d 597 (lOth Cir. 1970). They 

conclude the plaintiffs' claims cannot be aggregated because they 

are separate and distinct under Snyder and Zahn. Following this 

logic, the court cannot even consider removal of the injunction 

claim, thus the damages claims were improperly removed from state 

court . 

AT&SF counters that Lonnguist did not involve jurisdiction 

under § 1441(c) because no party in that case claimed that the 

damages and the injunction were separate and independent as 

required under § 1441(c). Therefore, Lonnguist's aggregation 

prerequisite is not necessarily applicable to the § 1441(c) 

question of whether the claims concerning the money damages and 

the injunction are separate and independent. We agree and believe 

Lonnguist is inapposite. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-6260 Document: 01019726099 Date Filed: 02/28/1991 Page: 4 
The real question is not whether aggregation of plaintiffs' 

claims is a prerequisite, but whether state law or federal common 

law determines if the claims are separate and independent. If 

they are found to be separate and independent, this court must 

determine whether either the damages or injunction claims meet the 

jurisdictional amount to be properly removable. Wright, Miller & 

Cooper's Federal Practice and Procedure states that federal law 

is used to determine whether the claims are separate and 

independent, and state law determines the nature of the claims to 

which the federal law test is applied. In other words, "state law 

determines the character of plaintiff's claim, and federal law 

determines whether that claim meets the standard of 

Section 144l(c)." 14A c. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal 

Practice and Procedure§ 3724, at 397 (2d ed. 1985). 

AT&SF first seeks to determine the nature of the plaintiffs' 

claims under state law and argues that the damages and injunction 

claims are separate. Specifically, negligence is defined in a 

different section of the Oklahoma code from nuisance, and 

negligence is not required to prove nuisance in Oklahoma. AT&SF 

compares the present facts to those in Biechele v. Norfolk & 

Western Ry. Co., 309 F. Supp. 354 (N.D. Ohio 1969), where 

plaintiffs filed a class action in state court seeking damages and 

an injunction from nuisance arising out of the operation of coal 

storage and shipping facilities. Upon removal, the federal 

district court found that the damages and injunction claims were 

two separate claims for the purposes of§ 144l(c). The court then 

found diversity and the requisite amount in controversy to have 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-6260 Document: 01019726099 Date Filed: 02/28/1991 Page: 5 
jurisdiction over the injunction claim, and also held that, even 

though the individual damage claims could not be aggregated and 

did not meet the jurisdictional amount, the court had jurisdiction 

over them as well under S 144l(c). The court stated "[t]he claims 

are sufficiently separate to allow removal of the injunctive 

action alone. Therefore this Court, in the interest of judicial 

efficiency, will assume jurisdiction over the entire controversy." 

Id. at 355 (citing Climax Chern. Co. v. C.F. Braun & Co., 370 F.2d 

616 (lOth Cir. 1966)). 

If the damages and injunction claims are considered to be 

separate and independent, the next step is to determine whether 

either would be properly removable to federal court. We held in 

Oklahoma Retail Grocers Assoc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, 605 F.2d 1155, 

1160 (lOth Cir. 1979), that the amount in controversy may be 

established by looking at the defendant's cost of complying with 

the injunction. See also Ronzio v. Denver & R.G.W.R. Co., 116 

F.2d 604 (lOth Cir. 1940). Moreover, the vast majority of courts 

have measured the amount in controversy in injunction cases by 

looking at either the cost to the defendant or the value to the 

plaintiff. Federal Practice and Procedure § 3725, at 431-32. 

Therefore, the injunction claim is removable to federal court as 

it satisfies the jurisdictional amount based on the cost of repair 

to AT&SF, and the damages claims are removable along with the 

injunction under§ 144l(c). 

The next question is whether the district court should have 

remanded the damages claims that did not meet the jurisdictional 

amount. Plaintiffs try to avoid§ 144l(c)'s allowance of removal 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-6260 Document: 01019726099 Date Filed: 02/28/1991 Page: 6 
of the damages claims by arguing that if the district court should 

remand the claims not meeting the jurisdictional amount, all 

damages claims should be remanded in the name of judicial 

efficiency. However, § 144l(c) clearly states that if one claim 

is properly removable and a separate and independent claim is 

joined, "the district court may determine all issues therein, or, 

in its discretion, may remand all matters not otherwise within its 

original jurisdiction." Here, the damages claims that exceed the 

jurisdictional amount need not be remanded because they are within 

the district court's original jurisdiction. While the district 

court has discretion whether to remand the claims falling below 

the jurisdictional amount, the plaintiffs must show an abuse of 

discretion by the district court, and they have not done so. 

AFFIRMED. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 90-6260 Document: 01019726099 Date Filed: 02/28/1991 Page: 7