Filed: Sep. 17, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2444 JEFFREY C. SKEENS, as Administrator of the Estate of Grover Skeens; CAROLYN D. DAVIS, as Administratrix of the Estate of Charles T. Davis; OWEN T. DAVIS, as Administrator of the Estate of Cory Davis, Plaintiffs – Appellants, and GROVER SKEENS; CHARLES T. DAVIS; CORY DAVIS, Plaintiffs, v. ALPHA NATURAL RESOURCES, INCORPORATED; ALPHA APPALACHIA HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, f/k/a Massey Energy Company, Defendants - Appellees.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2444 JEFFREY C. SKEENS, as Administrator of the Estate of Grover Skeens; CAROLYN D. DAVIS, as Administratrix of the Estate of Charles T. Davis; OWEN T. DAVIS, as Administrator of the Estate of Cory Davis, Plaintiffs – Appellants, and GROVER SKEENS; CHARLES T. DAVIS; CORY DAVIS, Plaintiffs, v. ALPHA NATURAL RESOURCES, INCORPORATED; ALPHA APPALACHIA HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, f/k/a Massey Energy Company, Defendants - Appellees. A..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2444
JEFFREY C. SKEENS, as Administrator of the Estate of Grover
Skeens; CAROLYN D. DAVIS, as Administratrix of the Estate
of Charles T. Davis; OWEN T. DAVIS, as Administrator of the
Estate of Cory Davis,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
and
GROVER SKEENS; CHARLES T. DAVIS; CORY DAVIS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALPHA NATURAL RESOURCES, INCORPORATED; ALPHA APPALACHIA
HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, f/k/a Massey Energy Company,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger,
District Judge. (5:13-cv-20595; 5:12-cv-06854)
Submitted: July 31, 2014 Decided: September 17, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with
instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Michael Ranson, RANSON LAW OFFICES, Charleston, West
Virginia; G. Patrick Jacobs, JACOBS LAW OFFICE, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellants. A.L. Emch, Gretchen M. Callas,
JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey C. Skeens, Carolyn D. Davis, and Owen T. Davis
(“Plaintiffs”), as administrators of the estates of Grover
Skeens, Charles T. Davis, and Cory Davis, respectively, seek to
appeal the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice
their amended complaint against Alpha Natural Resources, Inc.,
and Alpha Appalachia Holdings, Inc., (“Defendants”) in Case No.
5:12-cv-06854 and dismissing with prejudice their complaint
against Defendants in Case No. 5:13-cv-20595. We dismiss
Plaintiffs’ appeal of the district court’s order in Case No.
5:12-cv-06854 as interlocutory. We vacate the district court’s
order in Case No. 5:13-cv-20595 and remand with instructions to
dismiss the complaint without prejudice for lack of
jurisdiction.
With respect to Case No. 5:12-cv-06854, we note that
we have already once declined to consider Plaintiffs’ appeal of
the district court’s dismissal of their case without prejudice.
See Skeens v. Alpha Natural Res., No. 13-1727 (4th Cir. ECF No.
41). We discern no differences in the posture of the case that
would require us to disturb our prior decision. See, e.g.,
Sierra Club v. Khanjee Holding, Inc., 655 F.3d 699, 705 (7th
Cir. 2011) (finding “no significant differences” in the legal
landscape that would warrant re-examination of prior
jurisdictional ruling). The district court’s dismissal in this
3
case remains an interlocutory order that is not subject to
appeal. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union
392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we once
again dismiss the appeal of the district court’s order in Case
No. 5:12-cv-06854.
Turning to Plaintiffs’ appeal of the district court’s
order in Case No. 5:13-cv-20595, “[a]s a court of limited
jurisdiction, we are obligated to satisfy ourself of our
jurisdiction as well as that of the district court.” Choice
Hotels Int’l, Inc. v. Shiv Hospitality, L.L.C., 491 F.3d 171,
175 (4th Cir. 2008); see also Wis. Dep’t of Corr. v. Schacht,
524 U.S. 381, 389 (1998). Federal jurisdiction may lie either
on the basis of diversity, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2012), or the
existence of a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2012).
Diversity jurisdiction exists when complete diversity of
citizenship exists among the parties and the amount in
controversy is greater than $75,000, exclusive of interest and
costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (stating
that corporation is deemed a citizen of state in which it is
incorporated and state in which it has principal place of
business). Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving the existence
of subject matter jurisdiction. Piney Run Pres. Ass’n v. Cnty.
Comm’rs of Carroll Cnty., Md.,
523 F.3d 453, 459 (4th Cir.
2008).
4
We conclude that Plaintiffs failed to bear their
burden of establishing complete diversity: although the amended
complaint establishes the citizenship of Plaintiffs, it
indicates only the states in which Defendants are incorporated,
neglecting to include also the states where Defendants have
their principal place of business. Consequently, the district
court should have dismissed the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction.
Moreover, “[g]iven the court’s lack of jurisdiction
over the case, any . . . holdings based on consideration of and
conclusions on the merits were beyond the power of the district
court.” S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Assoc., Inc. v.
OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 n.4 (4th Cir.
2013). Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order in
Case No. 5:13-cv-20595 and remand with instructions to dismiss
the complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. See
id. at 185 (“A dismissal for . . . [a] defect in subject matter
jurisdiction[] must be one without prejudice, because a court
that lacks jurisdiction has no power to adjudicate and dispose
of a claim on the merits.”).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
5
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART, AND
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
6
