Trundle's Heise Springs, LLC v. Any and All Persons Claiming an Interest in the Everett Webster Brenneman Revocable Trust

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:26-cv-00983-JKB Document 23 =Filed 10/14/26 Page1of3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

TRUNDLE’S HEISE SPRINGS, LLC, ‘
Plaintiff — | *
y. * CIVIL NO. JKB-26-0983

TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION, LP,
et al.,

Defendants. *

* * * * ‘ * * * * * * * *

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Trundle’s Heise Springs, LLC filed a Petition for Termination of Dormant Mineral
Interests and Complaint to Terminate Oil and Gas Lease in the Circuit Court for Garrett County,
Maryland against Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (“Texas Eastern”) and “any and all persons
claiming an interest in the ‘Everett Webster Brenneman Revocable Trust.’” (ECF No. 3.) Texas
Eastern removed the case to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1.) No
Defendant other than Texas Eastern has appeared in this case and, on September 9, 2026, Plaintiff
and Texas Eastern stipulated to Texas Eastern’s dismissal with prejudice from this case. (ECF No.
20.) Plaintiffhas filed a Motion to Remand (ECF No. 21), which will be denied without prejudice.

The Court’s diversity jurisdiction is typically evaluated at the time ofremoval. Higgins v.
EI. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1166 (4th Cir. 1988). At the time of removal,
there was complete diversity between the parties, as Texas Eastern and Plaintiff are of diverse
citizenship. (See ECF No. 1 Ff 10-12.) Although Plaintiff also named as defendants “any and all
persons claiming an interest in the ‘Everett Webster Brenneman Revocable Trust,” 28 U.S.C. §

1441(b)(1) directs that, in considering the diversity of the parties, “the citizenship of defendants

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 1:26-cv-00983-JKB Document 23 Filed 10/14/26 Page2of3

sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b); see Adegbenro v. Bank of
Am., N.A., Civ. No. 22- 00828, 2022 WL 16857065, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 2022), report and
recommendation adopted, Civ. No. 22-00828, 2022 WL 17253898 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2022)
(explaining that parties “which are described as ‘all persons’ who may claim title to or other
interests in the Property” are not relevant to the diversity inquiry, as they are fictitious defendants
under § 1441(b)); Baker v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Civ. No. 16-01943LJO-EPG, 2017 WL
931879, at *4 n.9 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2017) (similar). | -

Plaintiff has asserted that “[t]he remaining Defendants, if any, are believed to be citizens
of the State of Maryland.” (ECF No. 21 7 5.) The existence of a Maryland defendant would, of
course, destroy diversity. However, such defendants have not entered their appearance in this case.
On the other hand, to the extent that no Maryland defendant exists, the Court’s diversity
jurisdiction over the case would continue. Plaintiff does not adequately address this issue.

Plaintiff also argues that the case should be remanded because the Court should decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. However, the Court’s jurisdiction
over the remaining claims is based upon diversity jurisdiction, and so is original, not supplemental,
at least upon the record currently before the Court. And “([t]he court has no discretion to remand
a case when diversity jurisdiction exists.” Batista v. Pennsylvania Real Est. Inv. Tr., Civ. No.
DKC-22-1973, 2022 WL 17850121, at *] (D, Md. Dec, 22, 2022).!

In short, while logic would suggest that remand is appropriate where Texas Eastern—the
only defendant that has appeared in this case and the party that removed the case to this Court—

has been dismissed, Plaintiff has not provided this Court with a sufficient basis to remand this case

1 Further, that no party has opposed the remand request does not resolve the issue. See Johnson v.
Westlake Servs., LLC, Civ. No. DKC 23-702, 2023 WL 2914760, at.*2 (D. Md. Apr. 12, 2023)
(“[O]rdinarily, a federal court may not remand a case merely because the parties consent”).

2

Case 1:26-cv-00983-JKB Document 23 Filed 10/14/26 Page3of3

to the Circuit Court for Garrett County. Plaintiff will be permitted an opportunity to renew its
request for a remand.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that
1. Plaintiffs Motion to Remand (ECF No. 21) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE; and
2. Plaintiff SHALL FILE any renewed motion to remand within 14 days of this

Order.

DATED this /4 day of October, 2026.

BY THE COURT:

James K. Bredar
United States District Judge