Various v. Various

¶1 MEMORANDUM

¶2 The instant motion to remand was filed on behalf of 444 plaintiffs (“plaintiffs”) arguing that this Court must remand their actions to Mississippi state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants 1 have filed timely responses. For the reasons set forth herein, plaintiffs’ motion to remand will be granted in part and denied in part.

¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 These cases originated in Mississippi state court and were removed to federal court by defendants Union Carbide and ConocoPhillips. The basis for removal was the allegedly fraudulent joinder of two non-diverse defendants, Oilfield Service & Supply, Inc. (“Oilfield Service”) and Mississippi Mud., Inc. (“Mississippi Mud”). In addition, twenty-five of these cases were removed under the theory that plaintiffs were entitled to assert federal jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”).

¶5 After removal, plaintiffs filed motions to remand, on the same grounds considered here, in the Southern District of Mississippi. After considering these motions, United States District Judge Walter Gex remanded five of these cases to Mississippi state court. Before Judge Gex was able to rule on the remaining motions, the cases were transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and consolidated as part of MDL-875 by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. The remand motions remaining on the docket at the time of the consolidation with MDL-875 were denied by the MDL court without prejudice. (MDL-875 Administrative Order no. 11 at 3, doc no. 5936, 01-md-875.) Plaintiffs have renewed their request for remand in the 444 cases and this renewed motions is now before the Court.

¶6 Based on their procedural histories, these cases fall into three categories. Plaintiffs’ motion to remand will be considered under the facts of each category individually.

¶7 a.) Category 1: This category consists of 354 plaintiffs whose cases were initiated in 2004. Originally filed as a multi-plaintiff action, these plaintiffs had their cases severed into individual actions in Mississippi state court in 2006. After severance, each plaintiff filed an individual amended complaint. Defendants subsequently removed these cases as a group to federal court on Sept. 26, 2008. (Defs.’ Notice of Removal Ex. “D”, doc. no. 58, 09-mc-103.) The basis for removal in these cases is the alleged fraudulent joinder of non-diverse parties Oilfield Service and Mississippi Mud.

¶8 b.) Category II: This category consists of 65 cases which were filed in 2004, but were dismissed in Mississippi state court because they were filed in an improper venue. Plaintiffs re-filed these cases on Sept. 28, 2007, and defendants removed these cases as a group to federal court on Sept. 26, 2008, within one year of the date of re-filing. (Defs.’ Notice of Removal Ex. “D”, doc. no. 58, 09-mc-103.) As in Category I, the basis for removal in these cases is the alleged fraudulent joinder of non-diverse parties Oilfield Service and Mississippi Mud.

¶9 *361 c.) Category III: This category consists of 25 cases which were removed based on federal question jurisdiction. The defendants aver that plaintiffs’ claims are governed by OCSLA. As an alternative basis of federal jurisdiction, defendants also assert the fraudulent joinder of Oilfield Service and Mississippi Mud.

¶10 After removal, the cases in all three categories were grouped by the Court for settlement purposes, pursuant to MDL-875 procedures. 2 See MDL-875 Website, Settlement Conference Procedures, available at www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875.asp. After attending several settlement conferences with defendants and Magistrate Judge Strawbridge, plaintiffs filed the instant motion to remand.

¶11 II. LEGAL STANDARD

¶12 A district court considering a motion to remand “must focus on the plaintiffs complaint at the time the petition for removal was filed ... [and] must assume as true all factual allegations of the complaint.” In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 218 (3d Cir.2006). The “party who urges jurisdiction on a federal court bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists ...” Boyer v. Snap-on Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir.1990); see also Steel Valley Auth. v. Union Switch & Signal Din, 809 F.2d 1006, 1010 (3d Cir.1987), cert, dismissed sub nom. American Standard v. Steel Valley Auth., 484 U.S. 1021, 108 S.Ct. 739, 98 L.Ed.2d 756 (1988) (“It remains the defendant’s burden to show the existence and continuance of federal jurisdiction.”). Because the removal of an action from the state court to a federal forum implicates comity and federalism, it is said that “removal statutes are to be strictly construed against removal and all doubts should be resolved in favor of remand.” Steel Valley Auth., 809 F.2d at 1010 (citing Abels v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 770 F.2d 26, 29 (3d Cir.1985)); accord Brown v. Francis, 75 F.3d 860, 865 (3d Cir.1996); Boyer, 913 F.2d at 111.

¶13 The practical application of this “all doubts” standard is to place upon a defendant “a heavy burden of persuasion” when contending that a non-diverse party has been fraudulently joined. Boyer, 913 F.2d at 111. To prevail, the removing party must show that there is “no reasonable basis in fact or colorable ground supporting the claim against the joined defendant, or no real intention in good faith to prosecute the action against the defendants ...” In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d at 218.

¶14 Title 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) governs the timing of removal, specifying that “a case may not be removed on the basis of juris *362 diction conferred by section 1332 of this title more than 1 year after commencement of the action.” Additionally, “notice of removal of a civil action ... shall be filed within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant ... of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief .... ” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Where it is not evident from the initial pleading whether the case is removable, “a notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after receipt by the defendant ... of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable ...” Id.

¶15 III. APPLICABLE LAW

¶16 As the MDL transferee court, the Court must first determine which jurisdiction’s law to apply to the substantive and procedural issues in these cases.

¶17 A. Procedural Law

¶18 On matters of procedure, the transferee court must apply federal law as interpreted by the court of the district where the transferee court sits. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 294 F.Supp.2d 667, 672 (E.D.Pa.2003). Issues involving the timeliness of remand implicate federal procedural law. See In re Avandia Mktg., Sales Practices and Prods. Liab. Litig., 624 F.Supp.2d 396, 408-9 n. 15 (E.D.Pa.2009).

¶19 As noted above, after the cases were removed to federal court but before they were consolidated into MDL-875, the plaintiffs filed motions to remand in 449 individual cases. Judge Gex of the Southern District of Mississippi, in the only rulings that were made prior to the transfer to MDL-875, granted five of these motions. The remaining motions were pending upon transfer to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and consolidation under MDL-875. As to the five motions ruled on by Judge Gex, “there is nothing in the text [of § 1407] that authorizes a transferee judge to vacate or modify an order of a transferor judge,” In re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litig., 582 F.3d 432, 440 (3d Cir.2009), unless it is warranted after application of law of the case principles. Id. at 441-42 see also, In re Ford Motor Co., 580 F.3d 308, 312 (5th Cir. 2009). Under the circumstances of this case, the orders entered by Judge Gex on any motions to remand are binding on this Court.

¶20 There were, however, 444 motions to remand pending, but not yet acted upon by Judge Gex at the time the cases were transferred and consolidated under MDL-875. As described above, these motions were denied without prejudice after being transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, but have been renewed and are now before the Court. As to these cases, the Court will “adjudicate [these] transferred cases no differently than cases originally filed before it.” In re Korean Air Lines Disaster, 829 F.2d 1171, 1178 (D.C.Cir.1987). Therefore, as to the pending motion to remand, the Court will apply federal procedural law, as interpreted by the Third Circuit, the circuit where the transferee court sits.

¶21 B. Substantive Law

¶22 In applying substantive law, the transferee court must distinguish between matters of federal and state law. In matters requiring the interpretation of the Constitution, a federal law or a federal rule of procedure, a transferee court applies the law of the circuit where it sits. Therefore, in cases where jurisdiction is based on federal question, this Court, as the transferee court, will apply federal law *363 as interpreted by the Third Circuit. 3

¶23 In matters where the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 based upon diversity of citizenship, the transferee court applies state substantive law as determined by the choice of law analysis required by the state in which the action was filed. Therefore, in the instant cases, this Court will apply the state substantive law as determined by the choice of law rules of Mississippi, the state in which the cases were filed. 4

¶24 IV. DISCUSSION

¶25 A. Category I

¶26 The Category I cases refer to the 354 plaintiffs who originally filed their cases in Mississippi state court in 2004, yet removal was not effected until 2008. (Pis.’ Mot. Remand 1-2, doc. no. 44, 09-me-103.)

¶27 Plaintiffs argue that the Category I cases should be remanded for two reasons. First, because they were removed beyond the time limitations on removal found in § 1446(b); and second because the plaintiffs have valid claims against two non-diverse defendants, Oilfield Service and Mississippi Mud, destroying diversity of citizenship and leaving the defendants no basis for invoking federal jurisdiction. (Pis.’ Memo. Supp. Mot. Remand 15, doc. no. 45, 09-mc-103.)

¶28 In response, the defendants present a two part argument against remand. First, they contend that they are entitled to an “equitable exception,” allowing for effective removal after one year has passed from the commencement of the action. (Defs.’ Resp. in Opp’n to Remand 12, doc. no. 58, 09-mc-103.) The defendants contend that, because the plaintiffs engaged in “forum manipulation,” equity requires the Court to allow the removal of these cases. (Id. at 13.) Second, if the Court applies an equitable exception, defendants argue that Oilfield Service and Mississippi Mud are fraudulently joined, and thus, are not proper forum defendants.

¶29 1. Equitable Exception

¶30 Section 1446(b) imposes a strict one year limitation on the length of time that a party has available for removal after the commencement of the action. As described above, the petition for removal in the Category I cases was not filed until more than four years after these cases were originally commenced in state court. 5 *364 (Defs.’ Resp. in Opp’n Mot. to Remand at Ex. D, doc. no. 58, 09-mc-103.)

¶31 While § 1446(b) does not explicitly detail any exception to the one year limitation, the Third Circuit has held that the one year limit on removal is a procedural bar, not a jurisdictional one. Ariel Land Owners, Inc. v. Dring, 351 F.3d 611, 616 (3d Cir.2003). 6 The practical effect of this holding is to open the door to an examination of equitable considerations in deciding whether to allow exceptions to the one year limitation on removal.

¶32 In determining whether the equitable exception applies, courts have looked at the balance of the equities. In balancing the equities, courts have considered three factors: first, how vigorously the plaintiff prosecuted the action in state court; second, whether the defendants were complicit in any delay in removal of the case; and third, whether or not plaintiffs’ joining of the non-diverse defendants amounted to “flagrant forum manipulation.” See Namey v. Malcolm, 534 F.Supp.2d 494, 498 (M.D.Pa.2008) (holding that because defendants were partly responsible for the delay in state court, application of an equitable exception was inappropriate); Lee v. Carter-Reed Co., 06-1173, 2006 WL 3511160, at *5 (D.N.J. Dec. 5, 2006) (holding that defendants did not allege facts sufficient to show that plaintiffs conduct amounted to forum manipulation); In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 03-20376, 2004 WL 1535806 at *4 (E.D.Pa. June 18, 2004) (holding that defendants met the burden of showing fraudulent joinder where there was no possibility for recovery against the in-state defendants).

¶33 Balancing the equities in the Category I cases, the first two factors are particularly relevant here. In essence, they ask how diligently the parties pursued the litigation in state court prior to the untimely removal. See Lee, 2006 WL 3511160 at *5; see also Barney, 534 F.Supp.2d at 498.

¶34 Arguing in favor of the application of an equitable exception, the defendants contend that they diligently pursued the litigation in state court but were frustrated by plaintiffs’ forum manipulation. Defendants claim that they participated in all pretrial fact discovery, but that Oilfield Service was purposely never pursued by plaintiffs in an effort to keep them in the case as a nominal forum defendant. (Defs.’ Resp. in Opp’n to Mot. Remand Ex. D, doc. no. 58, 09-mc-103.) As a result, defendants claim that they had no way of uncovering plaintiffs’ forum manipulation until Oilfield Service filed a motion for summary judgment. (Id.) Having timely filed their notice of removal within thirty days of receipt of Oilfield Service’s summary judgment motion, an “other paper” for purposes of § 1446(b), defendants claim they are entitled to an equitable exception which would allow them to satisfy both of the timing requirements found in § 1446. Id. at 16. 7

¶35 Arguing against the application of an equitable exception, plaintiffs counter that *365 while they actively conducted litigation for more than four years in Mississippi state court, defendants were content to let the cases languish. Plaintiffs submit that they completed individual written fact sheets for each defendant and conducted some eighty-eight depositions. (Pis.’ Memo. Supp. of Mot. Remand 21, doc. no. 45, 09-mc-103.) Although plaintiffs never made any attempt to hide the fact that Oilfield Service and Mississippi Mud were the only non-diverse parties to the litigation, defendants never questioned or attempted to investigate the legitimacy of their joinder between 2004 and late 2008. (Id.) Plaintiffs further submit that they were continuing to develop this case against all defendants, including Oilfield Service and Mississippi Mud, when the cases were improperly removed to federal court. (See Pis.’ Memo. Supp. of Mot. Remand 20-22, doc. no. 45, 09-mc-103.)

¶36 The Court concludes that the defendants were content to let the cases languish in state court, failing to “use all procedural devices available to facilitate compliance with the one year requirement of § 1446(b).” 534 F.Supp.2d at 498. First, defendants apparently never sought discovery which would have established that the two non-diverse defendants were fraudulently joined. Second, despite the exchange of written discovery and the taking of numerous depositions, defendants never examined the basis for liability against the non-diverse defendants. (Pis.’ Memo. Supp. of Mot. Remand 21, doc. no. 45, 09-me-103.) In fact, in a case where the defendants argue that Oilfield Service and Mississippi Mud are so clearly absolved from liability that their joinder constitutes fraud, neither defendant filed a dispositive motion until August of 2008, four years after the cases were commenced. Under the circumstances, it is clear that, at least through lack of diligence, the defendants are partly responsible for the delay in proceedings in state court. Namey, 534 F.Supp.2d at 498.

¶37 On balance, the defendants have failed to show that the equities tilt in their favor, and application of an equitable exception is not appropriate.

¶38 2. Fraudulent Joinder

¶39 Since the Court will not apply an equitable exception to § 1446(b), an evaluation of whether Oilfield Service and/or Mississippi Mud are fraudulently joined is not necessary in the Category I cases. 8 Therefore, as to the 354 cases in Category I, plaintiffs motion to remand is granted.

¶40 B. Category II

¶41 The sixty-five plaintiffs in Category II originally filed their cases in 2004 as part of the same multi-plaintiff action as the plaintiffs in Category I. (Pis.’ Memo. Supp. of Mot. Remand 2, doc. no. 45, 09-mc-103.) Under Mississippi law, however, these sixty-five plaintiffs were dismissed from the action for improper venue. (Id.) These sixty-five cases were then re-filed by plaintiffs in September of 2007, this time in a proper Mississippi venue. The cases were then removed within the one year time limitation after they were refiled. (Id.)

¶42 As in Category I, removal under § 1332 was based on an allegation of fraudulent joinder of non-diverse parties. In their motion to remand, the plaintiffs argue that there is no basis for a finding of fraudulent joinder because Oilfield Service and Mississippi Mud are proper forum defendants *366 and plaintiffs have asserted colorable claims against them.

¶43 1.Fraudulent Joinder

¶44 Whether a party was fraudulently joined to defeat diversity is a procedural issue. Because the issue of fraudulent joinder is a procedural issue, it is a matter of federal law as interpreted by the Third Circuit.

¶45 Fraudulent joinder may be found on either factual or legal grounds. In re Avandia, 624 F.Supp.2d at 411. The Third Circuit test for fraudulent joinder requires a finding that “there is no reasonable basis in fact or colorable ground supporting the claim against the joined defendant, or no real intention in good faith to prosecute the action against the defendant or seek a joint judgment.” Abels, 770 F.2d at 32 (quotation omitted).

¶46 In assessing the factual basis of a claim, a court may engage in a limited piercing of the pleadings to discover any fraudulent joinder. Boyer, 913 F.2d at 112. The extent of a court’s inquiry, however, is “less probing than the factual review a district court conducts in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” In re Avandia, 624 F.Supp.2d at 412 (citing Batoff v. State Farm Ins. Co., 977 F.2d 848, 852 (3d Cir. 1992). Therefore, a court could remand the case to state court even though “the claim against that party [may] ultimately [be] dismissed [by the state court] for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d at 217 (quoting Batoff, 977 F.2d at 852).

¶47 After piercing the pleadings, the federal court must determine that a claim is color-able if it is not “wholly insubstantial or frivolous.” Batoff, 977 F.2d at 852. Here, the Court will address each non-diverse defendant in turn to determine whether each was fraudulently joined solely to avoid federal jurisdiction.

¶48 2. Mississippi Mud

¶49 In opposition to the instant motion to remand, defendants argue that Mississippi Mud was fraudulently joined because they were never properly served, and therefore, they were intended to be a nominal forum defendant joined solely to defeat federal jurisdiction. (Defs.’ Memo, in Opp’n to Pis.’ Mot. Remand 21, doc. no. 58, 09-mc-103.) Additionally, defendants argue that the plaintiffs failed to pursue the proper successor in interest to Mississippi Mud, which is GEO Drilling Fluids, a diverse entity incorporated in Delaware and with a principal place of business in Connecticut. (Id. at 20.)

¶50 Plaintiffs admit that they were unable to timely serve Mississippi Mud, but submit that it was due to confusing public records related to Mississippi Mud’s corporate history. (Pis.’ Memo. Supp. of Mot. Remand 28, doc. no. 45, 09-mc-103.) Plaintiffs do not address the fact that GEO Drilling Fluids is the proper successor in interest to Mississippi Mud and would be a diverse defendant. Plaintiffs claim that, once they “learned more about [Mississippi Mud’s] corporate history, service was attempted, although it was [attempted] after 120 days.” (Id. at 28-9.)

¶51 Because service was never effected on Mississippi Mud and never attempted on its successor, plaintiffs have not shown a “real intention in good faith to prosecute the action” against Mississippi Mud or its successor. Abels, 770 F.2d at 32. Therefore, a finding of fraudulent joinder as to Mississippi Mud is appropriate.

¶52 3. Oilfield Service

¶53 Unlike Mississippi Mud, Oilfield Service was timely served by the plaintiffs. In opposing remand, the defendants argue that the Court should find that Oilfield *367 Service was fraudulently joined for three reasons. First, they contend that plaintiffs never made a good faith effort to pursue claims against Oilfield Service because plaintiffs never deposed the corporate representative, never required Oilfield Service to respond to interrogatories, and never required Oilfield Service to respond to written requests for document production. (Defs.’ Memo, in Opp’n to Pis.’ Mot. Remand 18, doc. no. 58, 09-mc-103.) Second, defendants argue that there is no factual basis for plaintiffs’ claims against Oilfield Service because Oilfield Service never sold asbestos containing products. (Id.) Third, defendants claim that even if Oilfield Service did sell asbestos products, under Mississippi law, Oilfield Service is absolved of liability by the “innocent seller” doctrine. (Id. at 18.) Under this theory, there would be no legal basis for plaintiffs’ claims. 9

¶54 a. Plaintiffs’ Good Faith Effort to Pursue Claims

¶55 As to the first issue, the Court must determine whether plaintiffs made a good faith effort to pursue their claims against Oilfield Service in these cases. Plaintiffs state that they conducted fact discovery with witnesses and plaintiffs’ co-workers regarding Oilfield Service. (Pis.’ Memo. Supp. of Mot. Remand 21, doc. no. 45, 09-mc-103.) Furthermore, plaintiffs engaged in settlement conferences and significant pre-trial litigation in federal court in front of Magistrate Judge David R. Straw-bridge. Plaintiffs also responded to motions for summary judgment filed by Oilfield Service both before and after the cases were removed to federal court. (See Pis.’ Resp. Mot. Summ. J., doc. no. 67, 09-mc-103.)

¶56 Taking all the circumstances together, it appears that plaintiffs have actively conducted litigation against Oilfield Service. Despite the lack of formal discovery requests, plaintiffs have shown that they attempted to develop their claim against Oilfield Service, at least through informal means. Under these circumstances, defendants have failed to show that the plaintiffs’ joinder of Oilfield Service was in bad faith or clearly fraudulent.

¶57 b. Factual Basis for Plaintiffs’ Claims

¶58 As to the second issue, the Court must determine whether there is a factual basis for plaintiffs’ claims against Oilfield Service. On this issue, there are competing affidavits going to the nature of Oilfield Service’s asbestos business. The defendants have produced affidavits of the owners of Oilfield Service, Mr. Robert Stone, Sr. and Mr. Robert Stone, Jr. These affidavits state that, to their knowledge, Oilfield Service “never operated as a mud company or mud contractor” which would have sold or supplied asbestos containing drilling additives. (Def. Oilfield Service’s Memo, in Opp’n to Pis.’ Mot. Remand 7, doc. no. 57, 09-mc-103.) Defendants argue that the Stones’ averments negate any factual basis for plaintiffs’ claims against Oilfield Service.

¶59 In response, the plaintiffs call into question the reliability of these affidavits. Plaintiffs point out that, during the relevant period of potential exposure for all plaintiffs (1966-1980), Mr. Stone, Sr. was not the manager of Oilfield Service; Frank Stone, his uncle, was. (Pis.’ Memo. Supp. of Mot. Remand 8-9, doc. no. 45, 09-mc-103.) Mr. Stone, Sr. did not take over the day-to-day operations of Oilfield Service *368 until 1980, and had limited knowledge of the business before that. (Id.) Furthermore, plaintiffs state that Mr. Stone, Jr. was between the ages of nine and twenty-two during the relevant time period, and did not even begin full-time work at Oilfield Service until 1981. (Id. at 11.)

¶60 Plaintiffs also produced the affidavit of John Lee Brown, who worked for Oilfield Service in 1968 and from 1972-1974. (Pis.’ Memo. Supp. of Mot. Remand 3, doc. no. 45, 09-mc-103.) Mr. Brown avers that Oilfield Service loaded, unloaded and delivered asbestos-containing products like gaskets, pump packings, and brakes. (Id. at 4.) In refuting the contents of this affidavit, the defendants point out that Mr. Brown is a plaintiff in a pending asbestos personal injury action with Oilfield Service as a defendant. (Def. Oilfield Service’s Memo, in Opp’n to Pis.’ Mot. Remand 3, doc. no. 57, 09-mc-103.)

¶61 Considering these competing affidavits, the Court finds that they cancel each other out. The burden of proving that there is no factual basis for the plaintiffs’ claims remains, however, with the defendants. Given that the proofs offered negate each other, the Court finds that the defendants have failed to carry the burden of showing that there is no factual basis for plaintiffs’ claims against Oilfield Service.

¶62 c. Legal Basis for Plaintiffs’ Claims

¶63 As to the third issue, the Court must determine whether, under Mississippi law, there is a legal basis for the claims against Oilfield Service. Under Mississippi products liability law, an “innocent seller” is a company that acts as a mere conduit of a product. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-63 (2004).

¶64 The plaintiffs in this case assert both failure to warn and design defect claims against numerous defendants in their original complaint. (See Compl. ¶ V.) With regard to Oilfield Service, as a distributor of the allegedly asbestos-containing mud, the most relevant claims are the failure to warn actions. Mississippi’s innocent seller doctrine states that in a products liability claim for failure to warn:

“the manufacturer or seller shall not be liable if the claimant does not prove by the preponderance of the evidence that at the time the product left the control of the manufacturer or seller, the manufacturer or seller knew, or in light of reasonably available knowledge should have known about the danger that caused the damage for which recovery is sought and that the ordinary user or consumer would not realize its dangerous condition.”

¶65 Miss.Code Ann. § 11 — 1—63(c)(i) (emphasis added).

¶66 Succinctly put, the statute requires the party asserting the defense to show that the manufacturer or seller did not know, and could not have known, about the danger that these asbestos products posed to the consumer. Furthermore, the party asserting the defense must also show that the ordinary consumer or user of these asbestos products would have known that the products contained asbestos, and that the asbestos could have harmful health effects.

¶67 The defendants argue that they are immunized from liability by this statute because they did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the dangers posed by asbestos. (Def. Oilfield Service’s Opp’n to Mot. Remand 13, doe. no. 57, 09-mc-103.) Therefore, since they had no knowledge, they could not be responsible for warning the user or consumer, regardless of whether such user knew of the dangers or not. (Id.)

¶68 To rebut Oilfield Service’s assertions, plaintiffs point to contemporary literature showing that knowledge of the dangerous *369 health effects of asbestos was widespread in the 1970s, and that there are even studies on the health consequences of asbestos dating back to 1898. (Pis.’ Resp. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 9, doc. no. 67, 09-mc-103.) Therefore, plaintiffs argue that a company like Oilfield Service, which was involved in an industry that used asbestos heavily, would have known of the negative health effects posed by asbestos. (Id.)

¶69 Furthermore, the plaintiffs rely on this same literature to bolster their argument that the average worker did not know the consequences of asbestos exposure during the relevant time period (1968-1980). (Id.) The plaintiffs further state that they are in the process of gathering more information about warnings that were placed on any products delivered by Oilfield Service, as well as plaintiffs’ general knowledge of the dangers of asbestos.

¶70 Relying on this literature and the testimony of Mr. Brown, plaintiffs aver that it is far from clear that Oilfield Service is entitled to the protections of § 11-1-63 of the Mississippi statutes. According to plaintiffs, under the limited inquiry permitted in a fraudulent joinder analysis, they have produced enough evidence to show that plaintiffs’ cause of action against Oilfield Service is not “wholly insubstantial or frivolous.” See Batoff, 977 F.2d at 852.

¶71 The Court agrees with the plaintiffs. The defendants have failed to show that either the factual or legal basis of plaintiffs claims are “wholly insubstantial or frivolous.” See Batoff, 977 F.2d at 852. This Court is permitted to make only a very limited inquiry beyond the four corners of the complaint, and must apply a standard more deferential to the plaintiff than the standard used in deciding a motion to dismiss. In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d at 218. Applying this standard, the Court determines that the plaintiffs have put forward enough evidence to demonstrate that there is some factual and legal basis for their claims against Oilfield Service.

¶72 Consequently, the Court finds that the cases in Category II include Oilfield Service as a proper forum defendant. As a result, there is no diversity of citizenship, rendering federal jurisdiction under § 1332 unavailable to defendants. Plaintiffs’ motion to remand is granted as to the plaintiffs in Category II.

¶73 C. Category III

¶74 The twenty-five plaintiffs in Category III were removed based on federal question jurisdiction under OCSLA. In their motion to remand, plaintiffs make two arguments. First, that the only OCSLArelated claims that these plaintiffs have are intertwined with valid Jones Act claims. Therefore, since a Jones Act case that is properly brought in state court is not removable under federal question jurisdiction, these cases must be remanded. (Pis.’ Memo. Supp. of Mot. Remand 35, doc. no. 45, 09-mc-103.) Second, plaintiffs contend that the two defendants who originally asserted federal question jurisdiction, Pool Offshore and Nabors, have been dismissed from the case and have withdrawn their removal petitions. (Id.)

¶75 As to plaintiffs’ first argument, defendants counter that these workers, who worked on oil rigs, do not have valid Jones Act claims and therefore, the cases fall squarely within the grant of federal jurisdiction found in OCSLA. (Defs.’ Memo, in Opp’n to Pis.’ Mot. Remand 24, doc. no. 58, 09-mc-103.) Since the cases do not implicate the Jones Act, the grant of federal jurisdiction found in OCSLA entitles defendants to a federal forum.

¶76 As to plaintiffs’ second argument, defendants argue that federal question jurisdiction is based on plaintiffs’ claims, not the status of any defendant, and therefore the *370 fact that Pool Offshore and Nabors have withdrawn their removal petitions is irrelevant. (Id. at 25.) Finally, as an alternative basis for federal jurisdiction, defendants state that even if the Court finds that there is no OCSLA federal question jurisdiction in the Category III cases, there is fraudulent joinder of Mississippi Mud and Oilfield Service, entitling the defendants to § 1332 diversity jurisdiction under the arguments above. (Id. at 25-26.)

¶77 1. Applicability of Jones Act to Plaintiffs’ Claims

¶78 The Court agrees with the defendants that OCSLA grants federal jurisdiction over “all cases and controversies arising out of, or in connection with ... any operation conducted on the outer Continental Shelf which involves exploration, development, or production of the minerals, of the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf.” 43 U.S.C. § 1349(b). OCSLA defines the term “outer Continental Shelf’ as “all submerged lands lying seaward and outside of the area of lands beneath navigable waters ...” 43 U.S.C. § 1301(a). Whether these oil rigs were involved in operations governed by OCSLA, and whether these operations are governed by the Jones Act, is a matter of federal substantive law. Since there is no Third Circuit precedent on these issues, the Court will look to other circuits for guidance on this issue.

¶79 Plaintiffs’ claims seem to fall directly within the grant of authority in OCSLA, since they are based on injuries sustained while working on oil rigs — exploring, developing or producing oil in the subsoil and seabed of the continental shelf. See 43 U.S.C. § 1349(b). The Fifth Circuit has held that when a case or controversy arises out of activity that occurred on a rig “affixed” to the Outer Continental Shelf, it is within the proper jurisdiction of the federal courts. Tennessee Gas Pipeline v. Houston Casualty Ins. Co., 87 F.3d 150, 154 (5th Cir.1996). The oil rigs in question fit within this definition.

¶80 Additionally, workers on fixed drilling rigs are not on vessels, and therefore do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Jones Act. D.C. Thompson v. Crown Petroleum Corp., 418 F.2d 239, 240 (5th Cir.1969). In D.C. Thompson, the Fifth Circuit ruled that “the law is well-settled that a stationary, fixed platform, even though erected in coastal water, is not a vessel, and consequently plaintiff was in no sense of the word a seaman when he was injured.” Id. at 240. Therefore, under Fifth Circuit law, which the Court finds persuasive, the activities of these plaintiffs do not qualify them as seamen entitled to the Jones Act protections.

¶81 2. Dismissal of Original Removing Defendants

¶82 The Court also agrees that federal subject matter jurisdiction is not destroyed because both defendants who initiated removal have since been dismissed. A case arises under federal law if, at the time of removal, the success of the plaintiffs claim depends on the application of federal law. See Smith v. Kansas City Title and Trust, Co., 255 U.S. 180, 199, 41 S.Ct. 243, 65 L.Ed. 577 (1921); see also Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 681-2, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946).

¶83 In this case, each defendant consented to the petition for removal filed by Nabors and Pool Offshore. (Defs.’ Memo, in Opp’n to Pis.’ Mot. Remand 24, doc. no. 58, 09-mc-103.) Whether fewer than all the removing defendants are no longer in the case makes no difference, so long as one of the remaining defendants opposes the motion to remand. Therefore, the fact that the removing defendants are no longer parties to the action does not disturb fed *371 eral jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ OCSLA claims in this instance. 10

¶84 This Court finds that plaintiffs’ claims properly invoke OCSLA jurisdiction and do not fit within the purview of the Jones Act. Therefore, the motion to remand is denied with respect to the Category III plaintiffs.

¶85 V. CONCLUSION

¶86 For the reasons stated above, the motion to remand is granted in the cases in Categories I and II. These cases will be remanded to the appropriate Mississippi state court, because the defendants have failed to show that they are entitled to have their claims adjudicated in a federal forum. The motion to remand in the cases in Category III is denied, as federal question jurisdiction, under OCSLA, is appropriate.

¶87 An appropriate order follows.

¶88 ORDER

¶89 AND NOW, this 10th day of December 2009, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to remand (doc. no. 45) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is GRANTED as to the 354 cases in Category I and as to the 65 cases in Category II listed in Exhibit “B”, attached. It is DENIED as to the 25 cases in Category III, listed in Exhibit “C”, attached.

¶90 AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

¶91 _Exhibit “A”_

¶92 Mississippi District Mississippi Court State District Pennsylvania _Last Name_First Name County Court Cause No. Civil Action No.

¶93 Aaron Robert E. Jones 2006-141-CV3 09-cv-63215

¶94 Adcock Winford L. Smith 2006-76 09-ev-63581

¶95 Alexander Lloyd G. Smith 2006-78 09-cv-63582

¶96 Allen, Sr. Donald Jones 2006-140-CV3 09-cv-63217

¶97 Allred Wayne H. Jones 2006-135-CV3 09-cv-63218

¶98 Anderson Melvin Jefferson 2006-18 09-cv-63583

¶99 Anding Maxie Ray Jasper 16-0027 09-cv-63584

¶100 Ard Willie Glean Jones 2006-511-CV11 09-cv-63220

¶101 Arrington Milton L. Jasper 16-0029 09-ev-63586

¶102 *372 Arlington J.C. Jasper 16-0028 09-CV-63585

¶103 Aultman Carlton Smith 2006-182 09-CV-63587

¶104 Baggett David Wayne Jasper 16-0026 09-cv-63588

¶105 Bailey, Jr. Lee Owen Jones 2006-515-CV11 09-CV-63203

¶106 Ballard Jerry D. Jones 2006-134-CV3 09-CV-63206

¶107 Banks Daniel M. Jasper 16-0030 09-CV-63589

¶108 Banks Johnny C. Jones 2006-144-CV3 09-CV-63205

¶109 Barnes, Jr. Tommy E. Smith 2006-221 09-CV-63590

¶110 Beard Julius R. Jones 2006-517-CV11 09-CV-63213

¶111 Beasley Earnest Smith 2006-104 09-ev-63591

¶112 Berry, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Fred Berry, Deceased_ Fredna Jones 2006-228-CV3 09-ev-63012

¶113 Biglan Terry Lee Jones 2006-143-CV3 09-CV-63196

¶114 Bishop James Johnny Jones 2006-142-CV3 09-CV-63191

¶115 Boler, Jr. Cleveland D. Jones 2006-373-CV11 09-cv-63214

¶116 Bond Louis L. Smith 2006-152 09-CV-63592

¶117 Bounds George Jones 2006-102-CV3 09-ev-63194

¶118 Boykin Bobby G. Smith 2006-156 09-CV-63593

¶119 Boyles Burén Dale Jefferson 2006-13 09-CV-63595

¶120 Boyte James Jones 2006-132-CV3 09-cv-63209

¶121 Boyte George W. Smith 2006-179 09-cv-63596

¶122 Brady, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Willie Douglas Hancock. Deceased_ Kelly Jones 2006^424-CVll 09-CV-63013

¶123 'Breland Hiram Jesse Jones 2006-495-CV11 09-CV-63210

¶124 Brewer Donnie C. Smith 2006-129 09-CV-63598

¶125 Brister David Smith 2006-115 09-CV-63599

¶126 *373 Broadhead Thomas L. Smith 2006-70 09-cv-63600

¶127 Brown Isaac Smith 2006-71 09-CV-63291

¶128 Brown James Lavern Jones 2006-146-CV3 09-cv-63211

¶129 Brown Kenneth M. Jones 2006-122-CV3 09-CV-63207

¶130 Brown Randy K. Smith 2006-175 09-CV-63292

¶131 Brown Billy G. Smith 2006-207 09-CV-63693

¶132 Brown, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Claude Brown, Jr., Deceased_ Estelle Ruth Smith 2006-117 09-CV-63601

¶133 Brown, Jr. Thomas Smith 2006-196 09-CV-63567

¶134 Bryant Harmon J. Jones 2006-194-CV3 09-cv-63204

¶135 Buckley Herbert Jones 2006-80-CV3 09-cv-63195

¶136 Burkhalter James Donald Smith 2006-118 09-cv-63568

¶137 Burrow Daniel G. Smith 2006-214 09-ev-63570

¶138 Bustin Michael Smith 2006-105 09-cv-63571

¶139 Butler Dale Jones 2006-124-CV3 09-CV-63189

¶140 Byrd Gary R. Smith 2006-65 09-CV-63572

¶141 Byrd Randy Jones 2006-408-CV11 09-cv-63188

¶142 Byrd Rex B. Jones 2006-96-CV3 09-ev-63190

¶143 Campbell Charles R. Jefferson 2006-34 09-cv-63573

¶144 Campbell Jon Jones 2006-497-CV11 09-cv-63146

¶145 Campbell Douglas E. Jefferson 2006-15 09-CV-63574

¶146 Carney Paul Jones 2006-117-CV3 09-cv-63144

¶147 Carr Henry S. Jones 2006-83-CV3 09-cv-63145

¶148 Carruth John Howard Smith 2006-119 09-CV-63575

¶149 Carter Audley Smith 2006-120 09-CV-63576

¶150 *374 Carter, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Jessie L. Carter, Deceased Ollie Mae Smith 2006-121 09-CV-63694

¶151 Cavin Jerry W. Jones 2006-196-CV3 09-CV-63139

¶152 Clanan Tim Jones 2006-385-CV11 09-cv-63136

¶153 Clark Braxton Smith 2006-69 09-CV-63577

¶154 Clark Robert W. Smith 2006-103 09-CV-63579

¶155 Clark Thomas A. Smith 2006-208 09-CV-63580

¶156 Clark Colin R. Smith 2006-97 09-CV-63578

¶157 Collins George B. Jasper 16-0033 09-CV-63278

¶158 Collins Roderick Wayne Smith 2006-122 09-CV-63279

¶159 Conn Danny Jones 2006-184-CV3 09-cv-63131

¶160 Cooley Thomas Smith 2006-64 09-CV-63280

¶161 Cooper, Jr. Henry S. Jones 2006-524-CV11 09-cv-63134

¶162 Cothern Jerry L. Smith 2006-174 09-CV-63281

¶163 Coulter Charles L. Jones 2006-148-CV3 09-CV-63133

¶164 Cowart Robert L. Jones 2006-422-CV11 09-CV-63137

¶165 Crager Larry Smith 2006-142 09-CV-63282

¶166 Cummings, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of John Cummings, Deceased Henrietta Jasper 16-0034 09-CV-63283

¶167 Cupit James Jones Edward 2006-223-CV3 09-cv-63135

¶168 Curtis Wilmer E. Smith 2006-191 09-cv-63284

¶169 Curtis, III Concie Jones 2006-97-CV3 09-cv-63138

¶170 Daley David Jones 2006-224-CV3 09-cv-63173

¶171 Darty, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Charles Edward Darty, Deceased Teresa Smith 2006-155 09-CV-63690

¶172 Davis Terry W. Smith 2006-107 09-CV-63285

¶173 Dearman James Jasper 16-0057 09-CV-63286

¶174 *375 Dearman Kenneth L. Smith 2006-172 09-cv-63287

¶175 Delk Garner Smith 2006-93 09-cv-63288

¶176 Doggett Willie E. Smith 2006-123 09-CV-63289

¶177 Donald Newt Smith 2006-96 09-ev-63264

¶178 Donald Willard Smith 2006-150 09-CV-63265

¶179 Donald James Smith 2006-106 09-ev-63290

¶180 Donaldson Dale Jones 2006-188-CV3 09-cv-63172

¶181 DuBose Kenneth A. Smith 2006-72 09-ev-63266

¶182 Dunigan Darrius P. Smith 2006-44 09-CV-63267

¶183 Dunigan Jerry L. Jones 2006-150-CV3 09-cv-63176

¶184 Dunn James Lowrey Smith 2006-124 09-cv-63268

¶185 Dunn Vandiver Jones 2006-527-CV11 09-ev-63174

¶186 Durr Helen Smith 2006-209 09-cv-63686

¶187 Dvorak Eugene F. Jones 2006-529-CV11 09-cv-63175

¶188 Easterling Ernie L. Smith 2006-128 09-cv-63269

¶189 Echols Douglas Jones 2006-375-CV11 09-ev-63154

¶190 Ellzey Rickey Smith 2006-74 09-CV-68270

¶191 Emler, Sr. Robert W. Smith 2006-125 09-cv-63271

¶192 Eubanks John Smith 2006-151 09-cv-63272

¶193 Evans Donnie E. Jones 2006-203-CV3 09-CV-63155

¶194 Evans Bennie Jake Jones 2006-151-CV3 09-cv-63156

¶195 Evans, Jr. Joseph C. Jefferson 2006-16 09-CV-63273

¶196 Ezell, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Elbert C. Ezell, Deceased Shirley A. Jones 2006-152-CV3 09-CV-63017

¶197 Fairchild Kenneth Jones 2006-98-CV3 09-CV-63160

¶198 Fairley Bill Jones 2006-153-CV3 09-cv-63159

¶199 Farmer Lee Smith 2006-85 09-CV-63274

¶200 *376 Fedrick, Sr. Charles Smith 2006-43 09-CV-63275

¶201 Floyd Kendall Jasper 16-0036 09-cv-63277

¶202 Floyd Turner Jones 2006-88-CV3 09-cv-63161

¶203 Ford, Jr. Ernest Jefferson 2006-25 09-cv-63253

¶204 Fountain Miles D. Jones 2006-116-CV3 09-CV-63163

¶205 Fountain Sr. Michael V. Jones 2006-154-CV3 09-CV-63162

¶206 Foxworth Sidney R. Jasper 16-0037 09-cv-63252

¶207 Freeman Larry M. Jasper 16-0017 09-CV-63251

¶208 Gardner Charles Jones 2006-99-CV3 09-CV-63050

¶209 Gardner Ralph Jones 2006-533-CV11 09-cv-63040

¶210 Gardner Robert Wayne Jasper 16-0038 09-CV-63250

¶211 Garner, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Hubert Garner, Deceased James R. Jones 2006-235-CV3 09-ev-63008

¶212 Gatlin Richard G. Smith 2006-126 09-CV-63249

¶213 Gibson Bobby L. Jones 2006-387-CV11 09-CV-63049

¶214 Gilmore Authur Jones 2006-155-CV3 09-CV-63048

¶215 Goldman Grover Audell Jones 2006-157-CV3 09-CV-63046

¶216 Goldman, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of William Clarence Goldman, Deceased Patricia Smith 2006-161 09-CV-63687

¶217 Goode Stanley L. Smith 2006-178 09-CV-63248

¶218 Graham Kenneth Jones 2006-114-CV3 09-CV-63045

¶219 Grantham David Jones 2006-115-CV3 09-CV-63044

¶220 Graves Ted Justin Jones 2006-159-CV3 09-CV-63043

¶221 Green Billy R. Smith 2006-49 09-CV-63247

¶222 Green Gregory Smith 2006-198 09-ev-63246

¶223 Green Robert E. Jasper 16-0039 09-CV-63245

¶224 *377 Greene Stephen C. Jasper 16-0040 09-cv-63244

¶225 Gregory Paul Smith 2006-177 09-cv-63243

¶226 Hall Ansler Dale Jones 2006-192-CV3 09-cv-63069

¶227 Hall Quincy L. Smith 2006-165 09-CV-63242

¶228 Hargon James Jasper 16-0059 09-cv-63241

¶229 Harris James E. Jones 2006-376-CV11 09-CV-63067

¶230 Harris Ricky Wayne Jones 2006-161-CV3 09-CV-63066

¶231 Harris Willie James Smith 2006-197 09-CV-63239

¶232 Harris Curtis Smith 2006-159 09-CV-63240

¶233 Harvey Thad Jones 2006-534-CV11 09-CV-63064

¶234 Hayles Jerry W. Jefferson 2006-26 09-CV-63233

¶235 Haynes Isaac Jones 2006-84-CV3 09-CV-63063

¶236 Heathcock Cecil Smith 2006-102 09-cv-63232

¶237 Heathcock Nolan Smith 2006-199 09-ev-

¶238 Heidel John Jones 2006-160-CV3 09-CV-63061

¶239 Henderson George Jasper 16-0041 09-CV-63231

¶240 Herrington Don F. Smith 2006-189 09-CV-63230

¶241 Herrington James V. Smith 2006-94 09-cv-63229

¶242 Herrington Tony Smith 2006-176 09-CV-63228

¶243 Higginbotham Katie Jones 2006-113-CV3 09-cv-63062

¶244 Hitson Thurman R. Smith 2006-127 09-CV-63263

¶245 Hodge W.C. Smith 2006-160 09-cv-63262

¶246 Holifield Charles Edward Jones 2006-163-CV3 09-CV-63059

¶247 Hollingshead James Jasper 16-0042 09-CV-63261

¶248 Hollingsworth Billy R. Smith 2006-170 09-CV-63260

¶249 Hollingsworth Melvin Smith 2006-213 09-CV-63259

¶250 *378 Hollomon George H. Smith 2006-59 09-cv-63258

¶251 Holloway William L. Jones 2006-162-CV3 09-CV-63058

¶252 Holmes Donald W. Jones 2006-537-CV11 09-ev-63057

¶253 Hoover Charles Smith 2006-171 09-CV-63257

¶254 Howse Malcolm Paul Jones 2006-538-CV11 09-CV-63056

¶255 Huff Douglas Smith 2006-95 09-cv-63256

¶256 Hunt Randy R. Jones 2006-539-CV11 09-cv-63053

¶257 Hutto Ernest Wayne Jones 2006-411-CV11 09-CV-63052

¶258 Hutto Thomas E. Smith 2006-73 09-CV-63255

¶259 Hutto Thomas Larry Smith 2006-60 09-CV-63254

¶260 Jackson Larry E. Smith 2006-210 09-CV-63224

¶261 Jackson Leroy Jasper 16-0043 09-CV-63225

¶262 Jefcoat Jackson P. Smith 2006-101 09-CV-63226

¶263 Jernigan Jimmy D. Jasper 16-0062 09-CV-63227

¶264 Johnson Dan Wilson Smith 2006-111 09-CV-63238

¶265 Johnson Paul Bedford Jones 2006-540-CV11 09-CV-63180

¶266 Johnson, Jr. Roland Smith 2006-166 09-CV-63237

¶267 Jones James B. Jasper 16-0045 09-CV-63235

¶268 Jones Anthony E. Smith 2006-112 09-CV-63236

¶269 Jordan James Jasper 16-0025 09-CV-63234

¶270 Jordan Robert E. Jones 2006-425-CV11 09-CV-63182

¶271 Jordan Michael H. Jasper 16-0046 09-CV-63602

¶272 Keyes John E. Smith 2006-157 09-CV-63603

¶273 Keyes Joe Jones 2006-165-CV3 09-ev-63202

¶274 Kirk Jerry Smith 2006-86 09-CV-63604

¶275 *379 Kirkendall, Sr. Kenneth Smith 2006-100 09-CV-63605

¶276 Kirkley Dewayne Smith 2006-216 09-CV-63606

¶277 Kittrell Plummer Jones 2006-498-CV11 09-CV-63179

¶278 Knight Billy Ray Smith 2006-173 09-cv-63607

¶279 Knotts, Sr. Tommy J. Jones 2006-104-CV3 09-CV-63200

¶280 Lambert Howard Smith 2006-67 09-ev-63689

¶281 Lambert Ralph W. Jefferson 2006-19 09-CV-63608

¶282 Landrum Henry E. Smith 2006-217 09-CV-63609

¶283 Langley Willis F. Jones 2006-168-CV3 09-cv-63165

¶284 Lee Michael R. Jones 2006-400-CV11 09-CV-63166

¶285 Leggett Edward J. Smith 2006-92 09-CV-63610

¶286 Leggett Kenneth D. Jones 2006-167-CV3 09-cv-63167

¶287 Leonard, Jr. Colon R. Jones 2006-211-CV3 09-cv-63168

¶288 Lewis, Sr. William Jasper 16-0060 09-CV-63611

¶289 Lindsey, Individually and Vanessa as Representative of the Estate of Curtis William Lindsey, Deceased Jasper 16-0047 09-CV-63691

¶290 Lines David W. Jones 2006-545-CV11 09-cv-63169

¶291 Lofton Robert Junior Jones 2006-166-CV3 09-CV-63170

¶292 Magee James G. Jones 2006-547-CV11 09-CV-63089

¶293 Maples Bobby F. Jefferson 2006-35 09-cv-63613

¶294 Mashburn, Jr. William W. Smith 2006-116 09-CV-63614

¶295 Mason Keith Jones 2006-191-CV3 09-cv-63088

¶296 McAllister Ecclus Jones 2006-551-CV11 09-cv-63085

¶297 McCaffrey Lucious Smith 2006-131 09-cv-63615

¶298 McCaffrey Roger W. Smith 2006-200 09-CV-63616

¶299 McCarty Daniel Smith 2006-42 09-CV-63617

¶300 *380 McDonald Alfred Smith 2006-201 09-ev-63618

¶301 McDonald Ben F. Jones 2006-172-CV3 09-cv-63084

¶302 McFarland JohnW. Jones 2006-136-CV3 09-cv-63083

¶303 McGee Charles Smith 2006-218 09-cv-63619

¶304 McGill Ronnie Jones 2006-209-CV3 09-cv-63081

¶305 MeGraw William R. Jefferson 2006-22 09-CV-63620

¶306 McKenzie Thomas A. Jones 2006-427-CV11 09-CV-63080

¶307 McKinney Delton Alford Jefferson 2006-17 09-CV-63621

¶308 McLain Charles Irvin Smith 2006-89 09-CV-63622

¶309 McLain Clifford Jones 2006-553-CV11 09-cv-63079

¶310 McLain Jake W. Jones 2006-125-CV3 09-cv-63109

¶311 McLain Robert D. Jones 2006-171-CV3 09-CV-63078

¶312 McManus James Ray Jefferson 2006-20 09-cv-63623

¶313 Miller Loranzie Jones 2006-428-CV11 09-CV-63077

¶314 Miller Michael D. Jones 2006-554-CV11 09-CV-63076

¶315 Mills Bobby R. Jones 2006-170-CV3 09-cv-63075

¶316 Mills Owen L. Smith 2006-149 09-CV-63624

¶317 Moak Glen Smith 2006-183 09-CV-63625

¶318 Moore William Leon Smith 2006-87 09-cv-63626

¶319 Moore Willie E. Jones 2006-190-CV3 09-CV-63072

¶320 Morgan Otis L. Jasper 16-0048 09-CV-63627

¶321 Morris Robert E. Jones 2006-110-CV3 09-cv-63110

¶322 Mosley, Individually and Neena as Representative of Lee George Mosley, Deceased_ Smith 2006-90 09-cv-63692

¶323 Mullins Hugh W. Jones 2006-556-CV11 09-cv-63070

¶324 Nations Jimmy L. Jones 2006-558-CV11 09-CV-63183

¶325 *381 Neely, Sr. Michael K. Smith 2006-169 09-CV-63629

¶326 Nelson James Jones 2006-133-CV3 09-CV-63184

¶327 Newell Isaac Jones 2006-560-CV11 09-CV-63185

¶328 Nichols Billy D. Smith 2006-188 09-CV-63630

¶329 Nickey Cecil J. Jones 2006-173-CV3 09-cv-63186

¶330 Nugent Shelby Claiborne 2006-34 09-cv-63631

¶331 Odom Gary L. Jones 2006-378-CV11 09-cv-63187

¶332 Oliver Rickey L. Smith 2006-180 09-cv-63632

¶333 Paeey Gene W. Smith 2006-211 09-cv-i

¶334 Palmer Joe L. Jones 2006-561-CV11 09-CV-63149

¶335 Palmer Morgan T. Jones 2006-200-CV3 09-cv-63148

¶336 Parker Jeffrey B. Smith 2006-181 09-CV-63634

¶337 Parnell Phillip Lynn Jasper 16-0015 09-CV-63635

¶338 Peak William H. Jones 2006-430-CV11 09-ev-63100

¶339 Perkins Clifton A. Smith 2006-148 09-cv-63636

¶340 Phillips Frazier M. Jones 2006-121-CV3 09-CV-63099

¶341 Pittman Alfred J. Smith 2006-61 09-CV-63637

¶342 Pitts Michael C. Smith 2006-47 09-ev-63638

¶343 Pitts Luther Jones 2006-176-CV3 09-cv-63098

¶344 Pitts Sam Smith 2006-141 09-cv-63639

¶345 Pitts Vandol Wayne “V.W.” Jasper 16-0049 09-cv-63640

¶346 Pitts, Individually and Patricia as Representative of the Gayle Estate of Homer Earl Pitts, Deceased_ Jones 2006-174-CV3 09-ev-63009

¶347 Plumer Ernest Jones 2006-449-CV11 09-CV-63097

¶348 Porter Carl O. Jasper 16-0050 09-CV-63641

¶349 Powell Herbert K. Jones 2006-108-CV3 09-cv-63096

¶350 *382 Powell

¶351 Powell William Hinton Jones 2006-177-CV3 09-CV-63095

¶352 Presley, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of William Presslev. Deceased_ Alice Jones 2006-501-CV11 09-CV-63006

¶353 Preston Albert Jones 2006-416-CV11 09-CV-63093

¶354 Price Gary L. Jefferson 2006-21 09-CV-63642

¶355 Price George R. Jones 2006-502-CV11 09-cv-63092

¶356 Price Mark Jones 2006-562-CV11 09-CV-63091

¶357 Prine Charlie W. Smith 2006-40 09-CV-63696

¶358 Quick Billy Jones 2006-403-CV11 09-CV-63201

¶359 Ratliff Jason C. Jones 2006-563-CV11 09-CV-63108

¶360 Reed William Steve Jefferson 2006-29 09-cv-63643

¶361 Reid James D. Jones 2006-179-CV3 09-CV-63106

¶362 Rigney, Jr. Charles L. Smith 2006-45 09-cv-63645

¶363 Robbins Pearl Lavern Jones 2006-418-CV11 09-cv-63105

¶364 Robbins, Sr. Donald Smith 2006-185 09-CV-63646

¶365 Roberts Johnny W. Jasper 16-0051 09-cv-63648

¶366 Rodgers Julius E. Jefferson 2006-27 09-CV-63649

¶367 Rollins David Clinton Jasper 16-0024 09-CV-63650

¶368 Rollins Tommy Jones 2006-565-CV11 09-cv-63103

¶369 Runnels Carl A. Jones 2006-482-CV11 09-CV-63102

¶370 Russell James Lowery Jones 2006-112-CV3 09-CV-63151

¶371 Russell Larry Jones 2006-199-CV3 09-CV-63150

¶372 Russell William H. Smith 2006-140 09-cv-63651

¶373 Russell David P. Jones 2006-178-CV3 09-CV-63152

¶374 Rutland Billy Joe Smith 2006-139 09-CV-63652

¶375 Sanders Charles David Jones 2006-567-CV11 09-ev-63039

¶376 Saul J.M. Jones 2006-181-CV3 09-CV-63037

¶377 *383 Saul, Jr. Tom M. Jones 2006-120-CV3 09-cv-63036

¶378 Sauls, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Kenneth L. Sauls. Deceased___ Betty Jones 2006-419-CV11 09-CV-63004

¶379 Scarbrough Arthur L. Jasper 16-0065 09-cv-63653

¶380 Short Jesse James Jones 2006-225-CV3 09-CV-63035

¶381 Simmons Thomas E. Jones 2006-405-CV11 09-cv-63034

¶382 Sims Charles R. Jones 2006-89-CV3 09-CV-63033

¶383 Sims Gary B. Jefferson 2006-30 09-CV-63654

¶384 Sims, Sr. JohnW. Jasper 16-0052 09-CV-63655

¶385 Smith Charles Jones 2006-389-CV11 09-CV-63032

¶386 Smith Ervin Smith 2006-219 09-CV-63656

¶387 Smith Willis T. Smith 2006-80 09-cv-63659

¶388 Smith Charles R. Jones 2006-231-CV3 09-cv-63030

¶389 Smith Elmer H. Smith 2006-66 09-CV-63697

¶390 Smith Kelcie Dale Jones 2006-138-CV3 09-cv-63029

¶391 Smith Vince Edward Jasper 16-0023 09-CV-63658

¶392 Smith, Jr. Joe Jones 2006-379-CV11 09-CV-63028

¶393 Smith, Sr. Darrell D. Jones 2006-210-CV3 09-CV-63027

¶394 Speights James C. Smith 2006-168 09-CV-63660

¶395 Spence George Ross Jones 2006-406-CV11 09-CV-63026

¶396 Spiars Bobby Smith 2006-215 09-CV-63661

¶397 Spiers Joseph Jones 2006-505-CV11 09-CV-63025

¶398 Spradley Joseph Jones 2006-119-CV3 09-CV-63024

¶399 Spradley Stephen V. Jasper 16-0016 09-CV-63662

¶400 Stampley Charlie A. Jefferson 2006-32 09-CV-63663

¶401 Stanley David Foster Jefferson 2006-33 09-ev-63664

¶402 *384 Stewart, Individually Frances Jones 2006-559-CV11 09-cv-63015 and as Representative of the Estate of Floyd L. Nettles, Deceased_

¶403 Stinson Walter E. Jones 2006-396-CV11 09-cv-63021

¶404 Street William J. Smith 2006-62 09-CV-63665

¶405 Strickland Melton L. Smith 2006-138 09-cv-63666

¶406 Sullivan Corbit Jones 2006-198-CV3 09-cv-63020

¶407 Sykes Dodd Jones 2006-180-CV3 09-cv-63019 _Mitchell_

¶408 Tageant Louis Jefferson 2006-09 09-cv-63667

¶409 Tanner Daryl Ray Jones 2006-506-CV11 09-cv-63116

¶410 Tanner, Jr. Edward Smith 2006-195 09-ev-63668

¶411 Tatum William A. Jones 2006-380-CV11 09-cv-63117

¶412 Taylor, Individually and Lisa Jones 2006-543-CV11 09-cv-63014 as Representative of the Estate of Clarence Kelly, Sr., Deceased_

¶413 Teachey Jerry L. Jones 2006-571-CV11 09-cv-63115

¶414 Terrell Leroy Jones 2006-572-CV11 09-ev-63114

¶415 Thompson • Joe R. Jones 2006-489-CV11 09-cv-63113

¶416 Thompson, Individually Dimple I. Jones 2006-381-CV11 09-cv-63003 and as Representative of the Estate of Marvin Thompson. Deceased_

¶417 Toney Lester Jones 2006-577-CV11 09-cv-63112 Leroy

¶418 Townsend Larry W. Smith 2006-130 09-CV-63670

¶419 Tucker William Smith 2006-79 09-ev-63671 _Clyde_

¶420 Turner James M. Jones 2006-197-CV3 09-cv-63111

¶421 Upshaw Dewey Smith 2006-99 09-cv-63672 _Wayne_

¶422 Upshaw Jerry Smith 2006-98 09-CV-63673

¶423 Upton Joel P. Jones 2006-578-CV11 09-cv-63199

¶424 Wade Robert Earl Smith 2006-110 09-CV-63674

¶425 *385 Wagley

¶426 Smith

¶427 2006-109

¶428 09-cv-63675

¶429 Wallace

¶430 James C. Jones

¶431 2006-86-CV3

¶432 09-cv-63129

¶433 Waller

¶434 Pauline

¶435 Jones

¶436 2006-397-CV11 09-CV-63128

¶437 Walley

¶438 James R.

¶439 Jones

¶440 2006-91-CV3

¶441 09-CV-63126

¶442 Ward, Jr.

¶443 Henry

¶444 Jones

¶445 2006-382-CV11 09-CV-63127

¶446 Watts

¶447 James E.

¶448 Jones

¶449 2006-508-CV11 09-CV-63123

¶450 Weeks

¶451 Johnny R. Jasper

¶452 16-0055

¶453 09-CV-63676

¶454 Weir, Jr.

¶455 Freddie

¶456 Smith

¶457 2006-220

¶458 09-ev-63677

¶459 Wells, Sr.

¶460 Bobby G. Smith

¶461 2006-137

¶462 09-CV-63678

¶463 West

¶464 Charlie E. Jasper

¶465 16-0053

¶466 09-cv-63679

¶467 West

¶468 Dalton L. Smith

¶469 2006-11

¶470 09-cv-63680

¶471 West

¶472 Phillip

¶473 Jones

¶474 2006-383-CV11 09-CV-63122

¶475 West

¶476 Thomas E. Jasper

¶477 16-0054

¶478 09-CV-63681

¶479 Westerfield

¶480 Earl

¶481 Jasper

¶482 16-0022

¶483 09-CV-63682

¶484 White

¶485 Larry

¶486 James

¶487 Smith

¶488 2006-108

¶489 09-CV-63683

¶490 White

¶491 Randy J. Jones

¶492 2006-390-CV11 09-CV-63121

¶493 White, Jr.

¶494 J.B.

¶495 Jones

¶496 2006-92-CV3

¶497 09-ev-63120

¶498 White, Sr.

¶499 James E.

¶500 Smith

¶501 2006-136

¶502 09-CV-69684

¶503 Wilkinson

¶504 Reba N.

¶505 Smith

¶506 2006-158

¶507 09-CV-69685

¶508 Williams

¶509 David

¶510 Griffin

¶511 Jones

¶512 2006-579-CV11 09-cv-63119

¶513 Williams

¶514 Mathyngale

¶515 “Buck”

¶516 Jones

¶517 2006-26-CV3

¶518 09-CV-63118

¶519 Wise

¶520 Peter

¶521 Smith

¶522 2006-82

¶523 09-CV-63698

¶524 Yelverton, Jr.

¶525 John D.

¶526 Jones

¶527 2006-93-CV3

¶528 09-cv-63197

¶529 Exhibit “B” Mississippi

¶530 District Mississippi Court State District Pennsylvania

¶531 First Name County Court Cause No. Civil Action No. Last Name

¶532 *386 Adcock David Jones 2007-102-CV9 09-cv-63216

¶533 Ard Robert E. Jones 2007-104-CV9 09-cv-63219

¶534 Atwood Gene B. Jones 2007-105-CV9 09-CV-63221

¶535 Aultman, Sr. Mozell Jones 2007-106-CV9 09-cv-63222

¶536 Bacon Edwai’d Jones 2007-110-CV9 09-cv-i

¶537 Beard William M. Jones 2007-115-CV9 09-CV-63208

¶538 Bevis Jimmie L. Jones 2007-116-CV9 09-CV-63193

¶539 Boleware David Jones 2007-117-CV9 09-CV-63192

¶540 Boykin C.N. Jefferson 2007-101 09-CV-63594

¶541 Brent Fred Jefferson 2007-98 09-CV-63597

¶542 Brownell William E. Jones 2007-119-CV9 09-CV-63011

¶543 Burrell Vernon Smith 2007-259 09-CV-63569

¶544 Chapman Alford B. Jones 2007-125-CV9 09-ev-63141

¶545 Chipmon David Jones 2007-126-CV9 09-CV-63140

¶546 Collins Herman Jones 2007-129-CV9 09-CV-63143

¶547 Collins Larry Jones 2007-130-CV9 09-cv-63130

¶548 Cook Charles T. Jones 2007-131-CV9 09-CV-63132

¶549 Davis, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Don M. Davis, Deceased_ Stephanie Jones 2007-136-CV9 09-CV-63016

¶550 Easterling Sherman Jones 2007-140-CV9 09-CV-63153

¶551 Echols Charles Jones 2007-141-CV9 09-cv-63157

¶552 Evans Jacob Jones 2007-142-CV9 09-cv-63158

¶553 Feduceia Joe Jones 2007-144-CV9 09-CV-63276

¶554 Butler, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Bennie Floyd, Deceased Krysten Lambert Jones 2007-145-CV9 09-CV-63018

¶555 Foster Leonard W. Jones 2007-146-CV9 09-CV-63164

¶556 Gaines, Jr. Eddie Lee Jones 2007-147-CV9 09-cv-63051

¶557 *387 Glass Melvin R. Jones 2007-149-CV9 09-CV-63047

¶558 Gregory Rudolph Jones 2007-151-CV9 09-CV-63042

¶559 Gunter Jerrell J. Jones 2007-152-CV9 09-ev-63041

¶560 Hamrick, Sr. Charles Jones 2007-155-CV9 09-cv-63068

¶561 Harrison Ex Earl Jones 2007-157-CV9 09-cv-63065

¶562 Hodges Richard Jones 2007-161-CV9 09-cv-63060

¶563 Howard Johnny Jones 2007-162-CV9 09-CV-63055

¶564 Hudson, III Ompy L. Jones 2007-163-CV9 09-CV-63054

¶565 Ingle, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of W.C. Ingle, Deceased Audrey Nell Jefferson 2007-100 09-CV-63695

¶566 Richardson, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Troyee Johnson, Deceased_ Judith Jones 2007-165-CV9 09-CV-63005

¶567 Jordan Johnny Jones 2007-166-CV9 09-ev-63181

¶568 Kennedy Ross A. Jones 2007-167-CV9 09-cv-63177

¶569 Kerben, Jr. Sidney L. Jones 2007-168-CV9 09-cv-63178

¶570 Lofton Robert Jasper 17-0065 09-CV-63612

¶571 Madison Winston Jones 2007-171-CV9 09-cv-63090

¶572 Mahaffey, Jr. Alton J. Jones 2007-172-CV9 09-CV-63087

¶573 Mayhugh, Jr. Kenneth Jones 2007-175-CV9 09-CV-63086

¶574 McFarland Mark Jones 2007-177-CV9 09-cv-63082

¶575 McNair, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of L.B. McNair, Deceased Betty Jones 2007-178-CV9 09-CV-63010

¶576 Mire, Sr. Bobby W. Jones 2007-179-CV9 09-cv-63074

¶577 Moak Dennis G. Jones 2007-180-CV9 09-cv-63073

¶578 Motley Vincent Jones 2007-184-CV9 09-cv-63071

¶579 Murray, Sr. Bobby Claiborne 2007-165 09-cv-63628

¶580 Patton J.E. Jones 2007-188-CV9 09-CV-63147

¶581 *388 Pevey, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of James E. Pevey, Deceased_ Chrystelle Jones 2007-189-CV9 09-cv-63007

¶582 Prather Daniel L. Jones 2007-192-CV9 09-cv-63094

¶583 Ramage Jackie D. Jones 2007-197-CV9 09-CV-63107

¶584 Revette, Jr. Harvey Richard Smith 2007-260 09-CV-63644

¶585 Roberts Jimmy Jasper 17-0064 09-CV-63647

¶586 Rollins Larry Jessie Jones 2007-200-CV9 09-cv-63104

¶587 Rushing Mitchell R. Jones 2007-201-CV9 09-cv-63101

¶588 Sasser, Jr. Aaron Jones 2007-203-CV9 09-cv-63038

¶589 Smith Charles C. Jones 2007-205-CV9 09-CV-63031

¶590 Smith Mark Jefferson 2007-104 09-CV-63657

¶591 Stephens Joe Jones 2007-209-CV9 09-CV-63023

¶592 Stewart Timothy L. Jones 2007-210-CY9 09-CV-63022

¶593 Thornton Harold D. Jefferson 2007-103 09-CV-63669

¶594 Usry Kenneth Jones 2007-217-CV9 09-CV-63198

¶595 Warnock Jerry L. Jones 2007-219-CV9 09-CV-63125

¶596 Watkins Ted Jones 2007-220-CV9 09-CV-63124

¶597 Exhibit “C’:

¶598 Last Name First Name Mississippi District Court County Mississippi State District Court Cause No. Pennsylvania Civil Action No.

¶599 Brady Clinton L. Jones 2006-407-CV11 5:08-cv-87071-ER

¶600 Broom Harvey E. Jones 2006-519-CV11 5:08-cv-87069-ER

¶601 Bullock Deloice Jones 2006-520-CV11 5:08-cv-87072-ER

¶602 Crawford Joseph Jones 2006-394-CV11 5:08-cv-87080-ER

¶603 Curd Patrick Jones 2006-525-CV11 5:08-cv-87083-ER

¶604 Daniels Willie Lee Jones 2006-409-CV11 5:08-ev-87068-ER

¶605 Daughdrill Dan Mack Jones 2006-526-CV11 5:08-cv-87081-ER

¶606 Dearman Rolland Jones 2006-410-CV11 5:08-cv-87070-ER

¶607 Dixon George D. Jones 2006-374-CV11 5:08-cv-87077-ER

¶608 Emler Louie T. Jones 2006^64-CVll 5:08-cv-87084-ER

¶609 Faust Johnny W. Jones 2006-90-CV3 5:08-ev-8589<MER

¶610 Henry A. Jones 2006^68-CVU 5:08-cv-87079-ER Herring (deceased)

¶611 *389 Livingston_Daniel_Jones_2006-94-CV3_5:08-cv-85987-ER

¶612 Lord, Sr._Archie A. Smith_16-0056_5:08-cv-87030-ER

¶613 McPhail_Ralph T. Jones 2006-345-CV9 5:08-cv-87048-ER

¶614 Mounteer, Sr._Eliel K. Jones 2006-555-CV11 5:08-cv-87073~ER

¶615 Newsom_Joseph_Jones_16-0018_5:08-cv-87076-ER

¶616 Newsom_Lonnie_Jones_2006-414-CV11 5:08-cv-87031-ER

¶617 Piner_Ted L._Jones_2006-415-CV11 5:08-cv-87078-ER

¶618 Polk Brandon Jones 2006-206-CV3 5:08-cv-85986-ER

¶619 _Kaye_

¶620 Polk_Dale F. Jones 2006-85-CV3 5:08-cv-85985-ER

¶621 Rawls_Ray C._Jones_2006-417-CV11 5:08-cv-87075-ER

¶622 Smith (deceased)_Cleophus Jones_2006-75_5:08-cv-87032-ER

¶623 Thomas_Tony N. Jones_2006-573-CV11 5:08-cv-87082-ER

¶624 Wallace_Terry_Jones_2006-491-CV11 5:08-cv-87074-ER