Bruner v. Arp Prod. Co.

RICKY WAYNE BRUNER, Plaintiff, v. ARP PRODUCTION COMPANY, L.L.C.;EP ENERGY MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., Defendants.

CASE NO. 6:14-CV-0618-SLB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA JASPER DIVISION

August 11, 2014

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case is currently before the court on defendant ARP Production Company's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. (Doc. 19.)¹ Plaintiff Ricky Wayne Bruner has sued defendants - ARP and EP Energy Management - alleging trespass, nuisance, and negligence claims arising out of defendants' drilling operations on certain real properties. Upon consideration of the record, the submissions of the parties, the arguments of counsel, and the relevant law, the court is of the opinion that the ARP's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, (doc. 19), is due to be denied in part and granted in part.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The purpose of a motion authorized by Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to evaluate the facial sufficiency of a pleading. Rule 12(b)(6) must be readtogether with Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which "requires that a pleading contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Am. Dental Ass'n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1288 (11th Cir. 2010) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). In deciding a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court accepts the allegations in the pleading as true and construes such allegations in the light most favorable to the pleader. Ironworkers Local Union 68 v. AstraZeneca Pharm., LP, 634 F.3d 1352, 1359 (11th Cir. 2011)(quoting Am. Dental Ass'n, 605 F.3d at 1288). The pleading "does not need detailed factual allegations" to withstand a 12(b)(6) motion; however, "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). "[A] [pleading] must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A claim for relief has "facial plausibility" if it "allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

Res judicata, a doctrine under which ARP seeks dismissal, "is not a defense under 12(b); it is an affirmative defense that should be raised under Rule 8(c)." Concordia v. Bendekovic, 693 F.2d 1073, 1075 (11th Cir. 1982)(citations omitted). "Generally, the existence of an affirmative defense will not support a motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, a[pleading] may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) when its own allegations indicate the existence of an affirmative defense, so long as the defense clearly appears on the face of the [pleading]." Quiller v. Barclays Am./Credit, Inc., 727 F.2d 1067, 1069 (11th Cir. 1984) (citations omitted), vacated on petition for reh'g, reinstated by 764 F.2d 1400 (11th Cir. 1985). If a district court considers matters outside the pleadings, the court must convert the 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). However, a district court may take judicial notice of public records, such as filings in other judicial proceedings, without converting a 12(b)(6) motion into a motion for summary judgment. Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 713 F.3d 1066, 1075 n.9 (11th Cir. 2013)("Although this [res judicata defense] is before the court on a motion to dismiss, we may take judicial notice of the court documents from the state eviction action."); Horne v. Potter, 392 Fed. Appx. 800, 802 (11th Cir. 2010)(per curiam) (finding that the district court properly took judicial notice of documents from a prior lawsuit "which were public records that were 'not subject to reasonable dispute'" (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)));² Universal Express, Inc. v. U.S. S.E.C., 177 Fed. Appx. 52, 54 (11th Cir. 2006)(per curiam)(finding that the district court's consideration of a complaint filed in aseparate case did not require converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment).

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

On or about December 30, 2011, plaintiff Ricky Wayne Bruner filed a quiet-title action against, inter alia, El Paso E&P Company seeking a determination of the ownership of the mineral rights as to certain real properties in Walker County, Alabama. The Complaint and Amended Complaint in that action sought only a determination of the ownership of mineral rights and interests in the real property. Bruner and "EP Energy E&P Company (formerly El Paso E&P Company)" filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal on August 29, 2013; the Joint Stipulation stated, "Plaintiff dismisses his claims against EP Energy, with prejudice." (Doc. 20 at 49.)

Bruner filed the instant action on April 3, 2014, in which he alleges that he is the owner of surface rights in certain real property in Walker County. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 7-20.) He alleges that defendants, ARP and EP Energy, "conduct drilling operations on and around [his properties] . . . for the purpose of extracting natural gas." (Id. ¶ 22.) He does not allege that he is the owner of the mineral rights on these properties.

The Complaint contains four Causes of Action: (1) Trespass to Lands, (id. ¶¶ 25-44); (2) Private Nuisance, (id. ¶¶ 45-51); (3) Negligence Per Se, (id. ¶¶ 52-59);³ and (4)Negligence, (id. ¶¶ 60-66). These claims are based on allegations that defendants "unlawfully enter[er], allow[ed], or caus[ed] hazardous foreign substances to enter [Bruner's properties]," including "hydrocarbons, methane, volatile organic compounds . . ., benzene, xylene, 1,3-butadiene," (id. ¶¶ 30, 37, 46, 57, 62, 65); unlawfully erected electrical power poles and cables on the properties, (id. ¶ 31); "haphazardly dug ditches and installed drainage pipes that cause runoff from the wells to land onto [Bruner's properties], (id. ¶ 34); "erected earthen berms that physically block [Bruner's] egress and ingress onto and from . . . his . . . [p]roperties, (id. ¶ 35); and damaged Bruner's ground waster wells, (id. ¶ 49, 64).

According to ARP, it is "the successor in interest to EP Energy by acquisition, assignment and bill of sale of EP Energy's assets and operations in Alabama." (Doc. 20 at 3 n.2.) Also, "EP Energy is the lone shareholder of what is now called EP Energy Management, LLC, which is the successor in name to El Paso Exploration & Production Management, Inc. and El Paso Production Oil & Gas Co." (Id.)

On June 9, 2014, defendant ARP filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Doc. 19.) In its Motion to Dismiss, ARP contends:

1. Plaintiff's claims are barred by res judicata because: (a) there was a prior judgment on the merits; (b) rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (c) with substantial identity of the parties; and (d) with the same cause of action presented in both suits.

2. To the extent Count III of the Complaint alleges violations of the Clean Water Act, Count III should be dismissed because Plaintiff cannot state a valid claim for failure to satisfy the Clean Water Act's procedural requirements.

(Id. ¶¶ 1-2.)

III. DISCUSSION

A. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH DEFENDANT'S REPLY BRIEF

ARP filed additional evidence with its Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. (See doc. 25-1 to doc. 25-6.) The moving party may not submit evidence with its reply submission without leave of the court. The reason for this rule is obvious - the non-moving party must be allowed a "reasonable opportunity" to oppose the moving party's Motion to Dismiss, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d), and evidence and arguments raised for the first time after the non-moving party has filed its opposition effectively denies the non-moving party such reasonable opportunity, see Burns v. Gadsden State Community College, 908 F.2d 1512, 1516 (11th Cir. 1990). When faced with additional evidence submitted by the moving party after the time set for the non-moving party to file all his opposition to the motion, the court has two options: "it [can] strike the [evidence] or grant . . . the nonmoving party the opportunity to respond to it." Cia. Petrolera Caribe, Inc. v. Arco Caribbean, Inc., 754 F.2d 404, 410 (1st Cir. 1985); see also Beaird v. Seagate Technology, Inc., 145 F.3d 1159, 1164 (10th Cir. 1998). In this case, the court chooses to strike the evidence.

Therefore, the documents attached to defendant's reply submission will be stricken and have not been considered in deciding its Motion to Dismiss.

B. RES JUDICATA

"The Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738,⁴ originally enacted in 1790, ch. 11, 1 Stat. 122, requires the federal court to 'give the same preclusive effect to a state-court judgment as another court of that State would give.'" Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 293 (2005)(citing, inter alia, Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama Bank, 474 U.S. 518, 523 (1986))(footnote added). Therefore, whether the prior Alabama state-court judgment bars the present action is determined with reference to Alabama law.

In Alabama -

Two causes of action are the same for res judicata purposes when the following four elements are satisfied: "(1) a prior judgment on the merits, (2) rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) with substantial identity of the parties, and (4) with the same cause of action presented in both actions." Equity Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. Vinson, 723 So. 2d 634, 636 (Ala. 1998). "If thosefour elements are present, then any claim that was, or that could have been, adjudicated in the prior action is barred from further litigation." Id. (citing Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 566 So. 2d 723, 725-26 (Ala. 1990)).

Chapman Nursing Home, Inc. v. McDonald, 985 So. 2d 914, 919 (Ala. 2007). "The touchstone of whether a...