Case 5:16-cv-12149 Document 1 Filed 12/14/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION
FRANK G. TREADWAY,
JOEY CLARK HATFIELD,
and CHARLES W. HENSLEY,
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
BLUESTONE COAL CORP.,
BLUESTONE INDUSTRIES, INC.,
and MECHEL BLUESTONE, INC.,
Defendants.

5:16-cv-12149
CASE NO. __________________

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiffs, Frank G. Treadway, Joey Clark Hatfield, and Charles W. Hensley, by and
through the undersigned counsel, bring this action arising out of a violation of the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 2101 et seq.
Defendant, Mechel Bluestone, Inc., in conjunction with its affiliates Bluestone Coal
Corporation and Bluestone Industries, Inc., failed to provide their full-time employees with the sixtydays notice required under the WARN Act prior to laying off more than fifty of those workers
beginning in December 2011 at the large mining operation known as the Burke Mountain Strip Mine
near the southern border of Wyoming County, West Virginia.
Plaintiffs bring this action, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on their own
behalf and on behalf of the Defendants’ other similarly-situated employees, for statutory damages,
interest, costs, and fees, pursuant to the WARN Act.

1

 Case 5:16-cv-12149 Document 1 Filed 12/14/16 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 2

Parties
1.

Plaintiff, Mr. Frank G. Treadway, was a full-time employee of Mechel Bluestone, Inc.

and Bluestone Coal Corporation for two and a half years. Mr. Treadway worked on the day shift for
those Defendants at the expansive surface mining site known as the “Burke Mountain Strip Mine,”
near the southern border of Wyoming County, West Virginia, at the time that he was laid off without
prior written notice on or about March 2, 2012. At all times relevant herein, Mr. Treadway has
resided in Fairdale, Raleigh County, West Virginia.
2.

Plaintiff, Mr. Joey Clark Hatfield, was a full-time employee of Mechel Bluestone, Inc.

and Bluestone Coal Corporation for five years. Mr. Hatfield worked on the midnight shift for those
Defendants at the Burke Mountain Strip Mine when he was laid off without prior written notice on
or about March 2, 2012. At all times relevant herein, Mr. Hatfield has resided in the area near
Hanover, Wyoming County, West Virginia.
3.

Plaintiff, Mr. Charles W. Hensley, was a full-time employee of Mechel Bluestone,

Inc. and Bluestone Coal Corporation for two and a half years. Mr. Hensley worked on the midnight
shift for those Defendants at the Burke Mountain Strip Mine when he was laid off without prior
written notice on or about December 28, 2011. At all times relevant herein, Mr. Hensley has resided
in Lester, Raleigh County, West Virginia.
4.

Bluestone Coal Corporation (hereinafter “Bluestone Coal”) is a West Virginia

Corporation, with its mailing address at P.O. Box 2178, Beaver, Raleigh County, West Virginia
25813, and its principal place of business at Glade Springs, 216 Lake Drive, Daniels, Raleigh
County, West Virginia 25832.
5.

Bluestone Industries, Inc. (hereinafter “Bluestone Industries”) is a West Virginia

Corporation, with its mailing address at P.O. Box 2178, Beaver, Raleigh County, West Virginia

2

 Case 5:16-cv-12149 Document 1 Filed 12/14/16 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 3

25813, and its principal place of business at Glade Springs, 216 Lake Drive, Daniels, Raleigh
County, West Virginia 25832.
6.

Mechel Bluestone, Inc., (hereinafter “Mechel Bluestone”) is a Delaware corporation,

with its mailing address at P.O. Box 2178, Beaver, Raleigh County, West Virginia 25813, and its
principal place of business at Glade Springs, 216 Lake Drive, Daniels, Raleigh County, West
Virginia 25832.
Facts
7.

Prior to December 27, 2011, Bluestone Coal, both on its own and jointly with Mechel

Bluestone and Bluestone Industries, employed at least approximately 105 employees, including
Plaintiffs, excluding part-time employees at the Burke Mountain Strip Mine.
8.

During the years 2011 and 2012, the Defendants owned, operated, and controlled

several mining facilities that produced and prepared coal in Wyoming and McDowell Counties, West
Virginia, including the integrated operations encompassed by the Burke Mountain Strip Mine.
9.

Mechel Bluestone owned, controlled, operated, and maintained the Burke Mountain

Strip Mine, in coordination with Bluestone Industries, through the subsidiary Bluestone Coal
Corporation.
10.

The Burke Mountain Strip Mine is located on the ridge known as Burke Mountain

that generally runs for several miles in a southerly direction originating from the headwaters of the
areas known as Pinnacle Creek and White Oak Creek in Wyoming County.
11.

The Burke Mountain Strip Mine constituted a “single site of employment” for

purposes of the WARN Act.
12.

Several workers, including Mr. Hatfield, maintained detailed daily journals regarding

the part of the Burke Mountain Strip Mine at which they worked each day, the equipment that they

3

 Case 5:16-cv-12149 Document 1 Filed 12/14/16 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 4

operated, and the length of their shifts.
13.

All of the employees at the Burke Mountain Strip Mine were engaged in a common

operational purpose, under common management, used common equipment, and were under the
Defendants’ de facto and de jure management, maintenance, and control. Representatives of each
of the three Defendants routinely ordered, directed, and/or controlled the Plaintiffs and other workers
throughout the Burke Mountain Strip Mine on a daily basis.
14.

At all times relevant to this action, the Defendants’ mining facilities in Wyoming and

McDowell Counties were under the Defendants’ de jure and de facto ownership and control as an
employer and a mine operator.
15.

Upon information and belief, employees of Defendant Bluestone Industries directed

the workforce at the Burke Mountain Strip Mine and participated in implementing the layoff that
forms the basis of the instant action.
16.

Up until December 28, 2011, there were three shifts of workers at the Burke

Mountain Strip Mine—day or first shift from 7:00 a.m. till 3:00 p.m.; evening or second shift from
3:00 p.m. till 11:00 p.m.; and hootowl, midnight, or third shift from 11:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m.
Defendants ordered and carried out a mass layoff at the Burke Mountain Strip Mine
17.

Around the end of the day shift on December 28, 2011, the Defendants’ management

verbally informed all of their employees at the Burke Mountain Strip Mine—some of them in person,
and some of them by telephone—that they were laid off for an indefinite period. At that time, the
management told the workers to show up for a meeting at the office known as the Blue Building on
Burke Mountain on or about the upcoming Friday, December 30, 2011, in order to pick up their
paychecks.
18.

One week later, on or about January 3, 2012, Defendants called approximately 40

4

 Case 5:16-cv-12149 Document 1 Filed 12/14/16 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 5

miners back to work at the Burke Mountain Strip Mine. The other roughly 65 of the Defendants’
employees continued to be laid off permanently.
19.

For approximately 35 of Defendants’ employees on the day shift and/or midnight

shifts, December 28, 2011 was their last day of employment at the Burke Mountain Strip Mine. On
that day, Mr. Hensley left his job at the mine around 7:00 a.m. for the last time.
20.

For approximately 30 of Defendants’ employees on the second shift, December 27,

2011 had been their last day of employment at the Burke Mountain Strip Mine because they learned
of the layoff before their shift began on December 28, 2011.
21.

On or about February 11, 2012, Mr. Hatfield was verbally told by Defendants that

approximately 5 more of Defendants’ employees at the Burke Mountain Strip Mine were laid off.
22.

Mr. Hatfield was informed by management that he had been scheduled for layoff on

February 11. However, another miner offered to swap places with Mr. Hatfield because the other
miner had already found another job. Thus, Mr. Hatfield was able to continue working at Burke
Mountain for a bit longer.
23.

On or about March 2, 2012, approximately 30 of Defendants’ employees at the Burke

Mountain Strip Mine were laid off, including Mr. Hatfield.
24.

The layoffs on December 27-28, 2011, February 11, 2012, and March 2, 2012, among

other dates known and unknown, each entailed less than the minimum number of employees
specified in 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2101(a)(2) or (3) as necessary to constitute a plant closing or mass layoff.
Nonetheless, in the aggregate, the number of employees laid off on those dates exceeded that
minimum number. Those aforementioned layoff dates all occurred within a period that was equal
to or less than 90 days from one another.
25.

Neither the Plaintiffs, nor a representative of their collective bargaining unit of the

5

 Case 5:16-cv-12149 Document 1 Filed 12/14/16 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 6

United Mine Workers of America, received written notice that the employees would be laid off prior
to the occurrence of these layoffs in 2011 and 2012.
26.

Upon information and belief, the employees laid off by Defendants were not all

provided with the graduated days and the holiday pay due to them.
27.

Dental and life insurance for the employees laid off by Defendants on the

aforementioned dates were terminated less than 60 days following those layoffs.
28.

Plaintiffs and all of those subject to the 2011-2012 layoffs at the Burke Mountain

Strip Mine were not called back to work for a period lasting over six months.
Count I - Violation of the WARN Act
29 U.S.C. 2104
29.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 28 as though fully set forth herein.

30.

Defendant Bluestone Coal individually, and all Defendants jointly, constitute

employers as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 2101(a)(1), for purposes of the WARN Act, because Bluestone
Coal individually and all Defendants jointly are business enterprises that either employed one
hundred (100) employees, excluding part-time employees, or employed one hundred or more
employees who in the aggregate worked at least 4,000 hours per week (exclusive of hours of
overtime).
31.

The Plaintiffs are affected employees as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 2101(a)(5), for

purposes of the WARN Act, because they are employees who experienced an employment loss as
a consequence of a plant closing or mass layoffs ordered by Defendants as stated in 2011-2012.
32.

As employers under the WARN Act, Defendants had an obligation pursuant to 29

U.S.C. § 2102 to provide written notice to the affected employees or to a representative of the
affected employees at the Burke Mountain Strip Mine at least sixty (60) days prior to the planned
plant closing or mass layoffs.
6

 Case 5:16-cv-12149 Document 1 Filed 12/14/16 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 7

33.

Plaintiffs were laid off by Bluestone Coal, and by Defendants jointly, on December

27-28, 2011, and March 2, 2012, as part of four or more groups of employees at the Burke Mountain
Strip Mine—a single site of employment—who were laid off on December 27-28, 2011, February
11, 2012, and March 2, 2012, among other dates known and unknown, all falling within a 90-day
period encompassing the aforementioned dates.
34.

Less than the minimum number of employees specified in 29 U.S.C. Section

2102(a)(2) and (3) were included in the layoffs on December 27-28, 2011, February 11, 2012, and
March 2, 2012, among other dates known and unknown within a 90-day period encompassing those
aforementioned dates. However, in the aggregate, the number of Defendants’ employees laid off in
those layoffs exceeds that minimum number. Accordingly, those layoffs taken together constitute
a plant closing and/or mass layoff pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 2104(d).
35.

Plaintiff Hatfield and Defendants’ other aggrieved and affected employees

experienced an employment loss because they were separated from work, without cause, for a period
exceeding 6 months, as a result of the layoffs on December 27-28, 2011, February 11, 2012, and
March 2, 2012, among other dates known and unknown within a 90-day period encompassing all
those dates, which constituted a plant closing at the Burke Mountain Strip Mine.
36.

Alternatively, the Plaintiffs and Defendants’ other aggrieved and affected employees

at the Burke Mountain Strip Mine experienced an employment loss as a result of the layoff that was
executed on December 27-28, 2011, February 11, 2012, and March 2, 2012, among other dates
known and unknown within a 90-day period encompassing those dates, and as a consequence of
which the Plaintiffs and Defendants’ other affected employees were laid off for a period exceeding
6 months, and which constituted a mass layoff.
37.

Defendants failed to provide a written notice to Plaintiffs, or their union

7

 Case 5:16-cv-12149 Document 1 Filed 12/14/16 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 8

representatives, or to Defendants’ other affected employees at the Burke Mountain Strip Mine, prior
to closing the plant or carrying out the mass layoff beginning on December 27-28, 2011.
38.

As a result of the plant closing or mass layoff carried out on December 27-28, 2011,

February 11, 2012, and March 2, 2012, among other dates known and unknown within a 90-day
period encompassing all those dates, at least approximately 100 of Defendants’ employees,
excluding part-time employees, and including Plaintiffs, who collectively comprised more than
thirty-three percent (33%) of the employees at the Burke Mountain Strip Mine, experienced an
involuntary, continuous, and ongoing employment loss for a period well in excess of six (6) months,
which continues to cause them substantial economic and other harm.
Class Allegations
39.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 38 as though fully set forth herein.

40.

Pursuant to Rule 23(a)-(b), Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of the other

similarly situated employees (hereinafter “Class Members”) who were laid off, as set forth above,
at the Burke Mountain Strip Mine.
41.

The proposed class would be defined as: All full-time employees who were

subject to a reduction in force from full-time employment at the Burke Mountain Strip Mine
by the Bluestone Coal Corporation, Bluestone Industries, Inc., or Mechel Bluestone, Inc. from
December 27, 2011 through March 26, 2012.
42.

The Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all Class Members is

impracticable because it is estimated that Defendants laid off at least approximately 100 of their
employees in violation of the WARN Act.
43.

There are questions of law or fact common to the Class Members that predominate

over any questions affecting only individual Class Members. The principal question in this case is

8

 Case 5:16-cv-12149 Document 1 Filed 12/14/16 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 9

whether the Defendants’ failure to provide notice of the 2011-2012 Burke Mountain mass layoffs
constituted a violation of the WARN Act.
44.

The claims and defenses of the Plaintiffs are typical of the claims or defenses of the

Class Members as a whole because the Class Members are similarly affected by Defendants’
wrongful conduct in violation of the WARN Act.
45.

The Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the Class Members

because Plaintiffs have demonstrated their commitment to this claim by carefully documenting their
work history in detail and by preserving their pay stubs, and because Plaintiffs are represented by
counsel who are competent and experienced, including experienced in bringing class action litigation
under the federal WARN Act involving Mechel Bluestone and its subsidiaries.
46.

A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of this controversy because (a) joinder of all Class Members is impracticable, (b) the
Class Members are likely unemployed and not in a position to retain counsel, and (c) each individual
Class Member has suffered damages that are merely modest. Therefore, there will be no difficulty
in the management of this class action and concentration of the claims in this forum will promote
judicial economy.
Damages and Relief Requested
47.

Pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b), & (c), and 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(5), and other applicable

law, Plaintiffs request that the Court certify that Plaintiffs and all other similarly-situated workers
from Defendants’ plant closing or mass layoff, as set forth above, constitute a single class.
48.

Plaintiffs request that the Court designate them as class representatives as permitted

by 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(5).
49.

Plaintiffs request that the Court appoint the undersigned attorneys as class counsel.

9

 Case 5:16-cv-12149 Document 1 Filed 12/14/16 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 10

50.

As a result of Defendants’ WARN Act violations, Plaintiffs request that the Court

order Defendants to pay Plaintiffs and all other Class Members up to the maximum amount of
statutory damages, including interest compounded at an appropriate rate and frequency, pursuant to
29 U.S.C. Sections 2104(a)(1) & (2).
51.

Plaintiffs request that the Court order Defendants to pay Plaintiffs’ reasonable

attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and other costs that Plaintiffs incur in pursuing this action as
authorized by 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(6).
52.

Plaintiffs request that the Court grant them and all other Class Members any such

other relief as it may deem just and proper.
PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY FOR ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE.
Plaintiffs,
Frank G. Treadway, Joey Clark
Hatfield, and Charles W. Hensley,
By counsel:
\s\ Samuel B. Petsonk
Samuel B. Petsonk (WVSB # 12418)
Bren J. Pomponio (WVSB # 7774)
Mountain State Justice, Inc.
1031 Quarrier Street, Suite 200
Charleston, West Virginia 25301
(304) 344-3144
Fax: (304) 344-3145
Email: sam@msjlaw.org
bren@msjlaw.org

10

 JS 44 (Rev. 0 /16)

Case 5:16-cv-12149 Document 1-1 Filed 12/14/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 11

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

Frank Treadway, Joey Clark Hatfield and Charles W. Hensley,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

Bluestone Coal Corp., Bluestone Industries, Inc., and Mechel
Bluestone, Inc.

Raleigh county

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
NOTE:

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

Attorneys (If Known)

Samuel B. Petsonk, Esq.
Mountain State Justice, Inc., 1031 Quarrier Street, Suite 200
Charleston, West Virginia 25301, 304-344-3144

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
u 1

U.S. Government
Plaintiff

u 3

Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)

u 2

U.S. Government
Defendant

u 4

Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) 
CONTRACT

u
u
u
u

u
u
u
u
u
u

REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property

u
u

u

PERSONAL INJURY
u 310 Airplane
u 315 Airplane Product
Liability
u 320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
u 330 Federal Employers’
Liability
u 340 Marine
u 345 Marine Product
Liability
u 350 Motor Vehicle
u 355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
u 360 Other Personal
Injury
u 362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
u 440 Other Civil Rights
u 441 Voting
u 442 Employment
u 443 Housing/
Accommodations
u 445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
u 446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
u 448 Education

(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
Citizen of This State
u 1

DEF
u 1

and One Box for Defendant)
PTF
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place
u 4
u 4
of Business In This State

Citizen of Another State

u 2

u

2

Incorporated and Principal Place
of Business In Another State

u 5

u 5

Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country

u 3

u

3

Foreign Nation

u 6

u 6

          &OLFN KHUH IRU  1DWXUH RI 6XLW &RGH 'HVFULSWLRQV 
FORFEITURE/PENALTY
BANKRUPTCY
OTHER STATUTES

TORTS

110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran’s Benefits
160 Stockholders’ Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise

u
u
u
u
u

Raleigh County

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

PERSONAL INJURY
u 365 Personal Injury Product Liability
u 367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
u 368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
u 370 Other Fraud
u 371 Truth in Lending
u 380 Other Personal
Property Damage
u 385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
u 463 Alien Detainee
u 510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
u 530 General
u 535 Death Penalty
Other:
u 540 Mandamus & Other
u 550 Civil Rights
u 555 Prison Condition
u 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement

u 625 Drug Related Seizure
of Property 21 USC 881
u 690 Other

u 422 Appeal 28 USC 158
u 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
u 820 Copyrights
u 830 Patent
u 840 Trademark

LABOR
u 710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
u 720 Labor/Management
Relations
u 740 Railway Labor Act
u 751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
u 790 Other Labor Litigation
u 791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act

u
u
u
u
u

SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))

FEDERAL TAX SUITS
u 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
u 871 IRS—Third Party
26 USC 7609

IMMIGRATION
u 462 Naturalization Application
u 465 Other Immigration
Actions

u 375 False Claims Act
u 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
3729(a))
u 400 State Reapportionment
u 410 Antitrust
u 430 Banks and Banking
u 450 Commerce
u 460 Deportation
u 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
u 480 Consumer Credit
u 490 Cable/Sat TV
u 850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
u 890 Other Statutory Actions
u 891 Agricultural Acts
u 893 Environmental Matters
u 895 Freedom of Information
Act
u 896 Arbitration
u 899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
u 950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
u 1 Original
Proceeding

u 2 Removed from
State Court

u 3

Remanded from
Appellate Court

u 4 Reinstated or
Reopened

u 5 Transferred from
Another District

u 6 Multidistrict
Litigation Transfer
(specify)
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

u 8 Multidistrict
Litigation  Direct File

WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 2104

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:

Violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification

u CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
VII. REQUESTED IN
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY
JUDGE
DATE

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
u Yes
u No
JURY DEMAND:

DEMAND $

DOCKET NUMBER

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

/s/ Samuel B. Petsonk

12/14/2016
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #

AMOUNT

APPLYING IFP

JUDGE

MAG. JUDGE

 Case 5:16-cv-12149 Document 1-1 Filed 12/14/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 12

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 0 /16)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a)
(b)
(c)

Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".

II.

Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)

III.

Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.

IV.

1DWXUH RI 6XLW   3ODFH DQ  ;  LQ WKH DSSURSULDWH ER[   ,I WKHUH DUH PXOWLSOH QDWXUH RI VXLW FRGHV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH FDVH  SLFN WKH QDWXUH RI VXLW FRGH 
WKDW LV PRVW DSSOLFDEOH   &OLFN KHUH IRU  1DWXUH RI 6XLW &RGH 'HVFULSWLRQV 

V.

Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.
Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.

VI.

Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII.

Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.