Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-31091/USCOURTS-ca5-15-31091-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-31091

EARL A. ADAMS, JR.; ALFRED ALEXANDER; JENELL ANTOINE; PAUL 

J. ARMAND; ALICIA AUGUSTE, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

JOSEPH F. GREFER, 

 Defendant - Appellant

CHEVRON USA, INCORPORATED; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT 

LLOYDS LONDON; BISHOPSGATE INSURANCE LIMITED; CORNHILL 

INSURANCE, P.L.C.; HANSA MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY U. K. 

LIMITED; MINISTER INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED; NORTHERN 

ASSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED; OCEAN MARINE INSURANCE 

COMPANY LIMITED; SIRIUS INSURANCE COMPANY UK LIMITED; 

SKANDIA UK INSURANCE, P.L.C.; SPHERE DRAKE INSURANCE 

COMPANY UK LIMITED; TERRA NOVA INSURANCE COMPANY, 

LIMITED; VESTA UK INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED; YASUDA FIRE ; 

MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY OF EUROPE LIMITED; ZURICH RE 

UK LIMITED; OILFIELD TESTERS, INCORPORATED; RIVERSTONE 

INSURANCE UK LIMITED, formerly known as Sphere Drake Insurance, 

P.L.C.; ALLIANZ INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED; 

YORKSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED; EXXON MOBIL 

CORPORATION; SEXTON OIL ; MINERAL CORPORATION; 

INTRACOASTAL TUBULAR SERVICES, INCORPORATED; ALPHA 

TECHNICAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED; OFS, INCORPORATED; BP 

EXPLORATION ; OIL, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION 

COMPANY, formerly known as Amoco Production Company; BP 

EXPLORATION ; PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; ATLANTIC 

RICHFIELD COMPANY; CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY; ANADARKO 

U.S. OFFSHORE CORPORATION, formerly known as Kerr-McGee Oil and 

Gas Corporation; MOBIL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCING US, 

INCORPORATED; RATHBORNE COMPANIES, L.L.C.; RATHBORNE 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 16, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-31091 Document: 00513382084 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/16/2016
No. 15-31091

2

LAND COMPANY, L.L.C.; RATHBORNE PROPERTIES, L.L.C.; TUBULAR 

CORPORATION; JOHN GANDY, INCORPORATED; ARCO OIL ; GAS 

COMPANY; L B FOSTER COMPANY; 51 OIL COMPANY; SHELL 

OFFSHORE, INCORPORATED; SHELL OIL COMPANY; SWEPI, L.P.; 

TEXACO, INCORPORATED; MARATHON OIL COMPANY; TRANSCO 

EXPLORATION COMPANY, as successor of Exchange Oil ; Gas Corporation, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:15-CV-4360

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In 2002, the plaintiffs filed a mass action suit against the defendants in 

Louisiana state court. The suit alleged personal injury and property damage 

from contamination exposure. The plaintiffs filed amended and supplemental 

petitions in January 2004, January 2015, and August 2015. After the August 

2015 amendment (hereinafter the “last amended petition”), defendantappellant Joseph F. Grefer removed the case to the Eastern District of 

Louisiana under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”).1 Grefer

argued that the last amended petition added new plaintiffs and claims under 

Louisiana law, thereby commencing a new action and opening a new window 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

1 CAFA, as codified by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), created a new basis for federal subject 

matter jurisdiction over qualifying civil actions. CAFA applies only to actions commenced on 

or after February 18, 2005. Braud v. Transp. Serv. Co. of Ill., 445 F.3d 801, 803 (5th Cir. 

2006).

 Case: 15-31091 Document: 00513382084 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/16/2016
No. 15-31091

3

of removal under CAFA. The plaintiffs moved for remand, and the district court 

granted the motion. We then granted the defendant’s motion to appeal the 

remand order. Because we find that the last amended pleading did not add any 

new claims, we affirm.

I.

This court reviews a district court’s remand order de novo. Rainbow Gun 

Club, Inc. v. Denbury Onshore, LLC, 760 F.3d 405, 408 (5th Cir. 2014).

II.

Here, Grefer contends that the last amended petition added hundreds of 

new plaintiffs and claims. Based on the plain language of the petition, we 

disagree. Section 2 of the last amended petition states that “[p]ursuant to La. 

Civil Code art. 2315.1, La. Civil Code art. 2315.2, and/or La. Code of Civil 

Procedure art. 4061 et. seq., in addition to all other statutory authority 

relevant hereto, the below-named parties hereby substitute themselves for the 

named plaintiffs, listed below[.]” (emphasis added). Grefer highlights this

section’s citation to article 2315.2—Louisiana’s wrongful death statute—as the 

basis for his argument that there are now hundreds of new plaintiffs and 

claims.2

Grefer’s reliance on this single citation to article 2315.2 ignores 

everything that follows in the remainder of the amended petition. Virtually 

every subsequent paragraph takes the following form: “The estate of A [an 

original plaintiff] is represented by the following heirs: B, C, and D.”3 In fact, 

 

2 In Louisiana, “[t]he wrongful death action does not arise until the victim dies. . . . 

[It] is intended to compensate the beneficiaries for compensable injuries suffered from the 

moment of death and thereafter.” Guidry v. Theriot, 377 So. 2d 319, 322 (La. 1979), 

repudiated on other grounds by Louviere v. Shell Oil Co., 440 So. 2d 93, 97 (La. 1983). Thus, 

the plaintiffs in a wrongful death action do not represent the decedent by substitution but 

bring the action in their own right for recovery of damages.

3 Of the 180 paragraphs in section 3 of the amended pleading, 173 take this form. 

Grefer’s factual assertion that the amended complaint added new wrongful death claims is 

 Case: 15-31091 Document: 00513382084 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/16/2016
No. 15-31091

4

none of the paragraphs alleges any facts whatsoever suggesting that a new 

plaintiff is bringing a wrongful death claim. Rather, each paragraph simply 

establishes which heirs will be representing the estates of which deceased

original plaintiffs. And the mere substitution of deceased plaintiffs by their 

heirs does not commence a new action for purposes of CAFA. See Admiral Ins. 

Co. v. Abshire, 574 F.3d 267, 274 (5th Cir. 2009).

III.

We do not address the hypothetical question of whether a properly 

alleged wrongful death claim would commence a new action under CAFA. 

Because no new claims have been alleged here, we need only apply our wellestablished default rule under Louisiana law: “[A]bsent special circumstances, 

a suit is commenced only at the time the original petition is filed in a court of 

competent jurisdiction.” Abshire, 574 F.3d at 273. AFFIRMED. 

 

based on these 173. Of the remaining seven paragraphs: one indicates that a plaintiff is no 

longer a minor and thus is no longer represented by a legal guardian; five indicate that a 

plaintiff previously listed as deceased is actually alive; and one indicates that an individual 

was previously incorrectly listed as a plaintiff when his wife was the actual plaintiff. 

 Case: 15-31091 Document: 00513382084 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/16/2016