Case4:14-cv-01048 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/16/14 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN RE: DORA ANN BURNETT, ET AL. Plaintiff,

AND PARTY WITH INTEREST MEDICARE, Secondary Payer Act

v.
ConocoPhillips, Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP, Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LLC, Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, Phillips Petroleum Co., Phillips Chemical Company, Phillips 66 Company, Pacific Employers Insurance Company, ACE U.S.A., ACE American Insurance Company, ESIS U.S.A., ESIS, AETNA U.S. Health Care, Aetna Life Insurance Company, Benefit Concepts, MetLife, Metropolitan Life Insurance, ACE Property and Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliated Insurers, Oil Company Insurance Limited (OCIL) of Bermuda, SOMA GODINEZ, Adjuster, CRAWFORD & COMPANY, LINDA GOIDNA, Benefit Assistant, DEARBORN NATIONAL, TPCIGA, DAVID HEINSOHN, Benefit Plan Administrator of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP, VIRGINIA HUBBARD of Human Resource for Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP, MYKE CAPPS of Human Resources Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP, LISA LAURIN, HR Manager Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP, SHEILA FELDMAN, HR Manager Conoco Phillips Company, TFM KTEHI, Plan Administrator Conoco Phillips Company, JAMES MULVA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14-cv-1048

Case4:14-cv-01048 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/16/14 Page 2 of 8

previous President and CEO Conoco Phillips, et al, RYAN LANCE Current President/CEO Conoco Phillips Chemical Company LP, PETER CELLA Chevron Phillips President and CEO, and all present and past BOARD OF DIRECTORS of ConocoPhillips, et al, CHARLES COVERT, MD, CHERYL HARTMAN, USW Local 12-227, JIM LEFON, International Representative, JOHN MICKEY BREAUX, Union Director and DANIELLE SANTORI, Corporate Compliance Chevron Phillips and SAVANNA SAM, Employee Relations Conoco Inc., Defendants.

NOTICE OF REMOVAL Defendant, Oil Company Insurance Limited (OCIL) of Bermuda (hereinafter "OCIL") files this Notice of Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(a). Introduction 1. On February 27, 2014 Plaintiff Dora Ann Burnett ("Plaintiff) filed her First

Amended Petition in Cause No. 76066-CV, In Re Dora Ann Burnett et al. V. ConocoPhillips et al., in the 149th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas. OCIL did not receive notice of the suit until approximately March 17, 2014 when the Texas Department of Insurance forwarded Plaintiffs First Amended Petition. Consequently, OCIL timely filed this notice of removal within the 30-day period required by 28 U.S.C. 1446(b). Basis for Removal 2. Plaintiffs claims involve an alleged dispute between a citizen of Texas and

numerous defendants, some of whom would admittedly be considered non-diverse citizens of Texas, but for the fact that all defendants have been fraudulently or improperly joined. In particular, Plaintiffs First Amended Petition affirmatively stated that her complaints concern an

Case4:14-cv-01048 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/16/14 Page 3 of 8

incident in 2000.l Fourteen years later, all possible statutes of limitation concerning the incident have run. Consequently, removal is proper on the basis of diversity of citizenship because there are no properly joined non-diverse defendants. Law and Argument 3. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship, meaning that the

exercise of jurisdiction generally is not appropriate if any plaintiff shares the same state citizenship as any defendant. However, the "citizens" upon whose diversity jurisdiction rests

must be real and substantial parties to the controversy.4 Thus, a party can also remove a case from state to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction by showing that any seemingly non-diverse parties were fraudulently or improperly joined.5 Whenever fraudulent or improper joinder has occurred, the fraudulently-joined or improperly-joined parties should be disregarded in the diversity jurisdiction analysis.6 4. The Fifth Circuit recognizes at least two types of fraudulent or improper joinder

applicable to this case: (1) fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts; or (2) the inability of the Plaintiff to establish a cause of action against the non-diverse party in state court. The district

1
2

Exhibit 1, Plaintiffs First Amended Petition, Page 6.

28 U.S.C. 1332(a); see also Smallwood V. III. Cent. R.R. Co., 385 F.3d 568, 573 (5th Cir. 2004) (stating

that defendants are entitled to remove a case to federal court "unless an in-state defendant has been 'properly joined'").
3

Corfield v. Dallas Glen Hills, LP., 355 F.3d 853,857 (5th Cir. 2003). Id.

See Jernigan v. Ashland Oil Co., 989 F.2d 812, 815 (5th Cir. 1993).

See Smallwood, 385 F.23d at 573 (5th Cir. 2004) (stating that defendants are entitled to remove a case to federal court "unless an in-state defendant has been 'properly joined'").
Id.

Case4:14-cv-01048 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/16/14 Page 4 of 8

court may use a summary judgment-like procedure and consider affidavits and other evidence
o

outside the pleadings represented by a defendant in its notice of removal. 5. Plaintiffs pleading of jurisdictional facts was fraudulent and improper because

the state district court cannot possibly have jurisdiction over this case for at least two reasons: Plaintiffs First Amended Petition was filed fourteen years after the incident, past all possible statutes of limitations, depriving the state district court of jurisdiction; and Texas courts do not have jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant unless the defendant purposely established "minimum contacts" with Texas.9
OCIL (and likely many other minimum contacts.10 defendants) lacks the required

6.

Similarly, Plaintiff cannot establish a cause of action against any defendant in

state court because her First Amended Petition was filed fourteen years after the incident, past all possible statutes of limitations. Indeed, Plaintiff never had any kind of contact with OCIL that could give rise to a cause of action against OCIL.11 7. In addition, removal is proper because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 Specifically, Plaintiffs First Amended Petition alleged:

exclusive of interests and costs.

"Defendants, jointly and severally, have taken as much as and possibly over $5 trillion from the United States Government in the years 1975 to present, the said unlawful taking consisting of the unlawful creation of claims against the U.S. Treasury to the extent of millions of dollars in the years 1975 to present."13

Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305, 311-312 (5th Cir. 2002); Cavallini v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 44 F.3d 256,259-260 (5th Cir. 1995). Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462,474-476 (1985).
See Exhibit 2, Affidavit of Theodore R. Henke.

10

See id. See id.

Exhibit 1, Plaintiffs First Amended Petition, Page 8. Emphasis added.

Case4:14-cv-01048 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/16/14 Page 5 of 8

Plaintiff also alleged: Physical pain and mental anguish suffered since 2000 and continuing into the future; Reasonable medical expenses incurred since 2000 and continuing into the future; Physical impairment suffered since 2000 and continuing into the future; Loss of enjoyment of life suffered since 2000 and continuing into the future; and Lost earning capacity.14

Based on the damages alleged on the face of Plaintiff s First Amended Petition, Plaintiffs claims add up to potentially trillions of dollars, and the amount in controversy therefore far exceeds the $75,000 minimum for diversity jurisdiction.15 Accordingly, all the requirements are met for removal 28 U.S.C. 1332 and 1441(b). 8. No proper defendants exist. Consequently, there is no need to obtain the consent

to removal of other fraudulently or improperly joined defendants.16 9. All pleadings, process, orders, and other filings in the state court action are
1 n

attached to this notice as required by 28 U.S.C. 1446(a) and Local Rule 81. of such attached documents: Exhibit 3: Exhibit4:
14

Below is an index

Civil Case Information Sheet Plaintiffs Original Petition

Id. at Page 16.

See Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002) (noting that courts generally "consult the state court petition to determine the amount in controversy); St. Paul Reins. Co. Ltd. V. Greenberg, 134F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998) (same).
16

15

Jernigan, 989 F.2d at 815.

OCIL is unable to provide the list of counsel of record required by Local Rule 81.6 because, according to documents obtained by OCIL from the state court, no parties have yet answered. Consequently, the only counsel of record would be the undersigned and the pro se Plaintiff.

17

Case4:14-cv-01048 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/16/14 Page 6 of 8

Exhibit 5:

Pro Se Notice

Exhibit 6:
Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Exhibit 9: Exhibit 10: Exhibit 11: Exhibit 12: Exhibit 13: Exhibit 14: Exhibit 15: Exhibit 16: Exhibit 17: Exhibit 18: Exhibit 19: Exhibit 20: Exhibit 21: Exhibit 22: Exhibit 23: Exhibit 24: Exhibit 25: Exhibit 26: Exhibit 27:

Plaintiffs First Amended Petition

Process Request Process Request Process Request Correspondence from Texas Department of Insurance to Plaintiff Citation and Return (Conoco) Citation and Return (Crawford & Company) Citation and Return (OCIL) Citation and Return (Aetna U.S.) Citation and Return (Virginia Hubbard/Chevron Phillips) Citation and Return (James Mulva/Conoco Phillips) Citation and Return (Cheryl Hartman/USW Local 13-227) Citation and Return (Jimmy Easton/USW Local 13-227) Citation and Return (Conoco Phillips) Citation and Return (Dearborn National) Citation and Return (TPCIGA) Citation and Return (Aetna Life) Citation and Return (Benefit Concepts) Citation and Return (Judith Rathgeber) Citation and Return (Mark Megaw/AII Ace Group) Citation and Return (Metropolitan Life) Citation and Return (David Heinsohn/Chevron Phillips Chemical)

Case4:14-cv-01048 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/16/14 Page 7 of 8

Exhibit 28: Exhibit 29: Exhibit 30: Exhibit 31: Exhibit 32: Exhibit 33: Exhibit 34: 10.

Citation and Return (Myke Capps/Chevron Phillips Chemical) Citation and Return (Chevron Phillips) Citation and Return (Chevron Phillips) Citation and Return (Chevron Phillips) Citation and Return (Phillips Petroleum) Citation and Return (Conoco Phillips) Citation and Return (Chevron Phillips)

Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1441(a) because this district and

division embrace Brazoria County, Texas, the place where the removed action has been pending. 11. A copy of this Notice of Removal will be filed with the Clerk of the 149th

Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas. Conclusion and Prayer For these reasons, Defendant, Oil Company Insurance Limited (OCIL) of Bermuda, asks the Court to remove the above action, now pending in the 149th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. Respectfully submitted, /s/Ronald E. Tianer Ronald E. Tigner Attorney-In-Charge State Bar No. 20028000 Fed. ID No. 3095 E-mail: rtigner@cozen.com

Case4:14-cv-01048 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/16/14 Page 8 of 8

OF COUNSEL: Karl A. Schulz kschulz@cozen.com COZEN O'CONNOR 1221 McKinney, Suite 2900 Houston, Texas 77010 Telephone: (832)214-3900 Facsimile: (832) 214-3905 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, OIL COMPANY INSURANCE LFMITED (OCIL) OF BERMUDA

CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument was sent by certified mail, return receipt requested on this the 16th day of April, 2014 to: Ms. Dora Ann Burnett ProSe 3607 Lauren Trail Pearland, Texas 77581 doraannswan @att. net /s/Ronald E. T/'oner Ronald E. Tigner