Abbo-Bradley v. City of Niagara Falls, 73 F.4th 143

Residents filed 19 nearly identical state-court suits (2012–2017) alleging injuries from toxic exposure tied to remediation of the Love Canal Superfund site.
Hooker/Occidental and the City performed CERCLA remediation; EPA and New York issued certifications/close-out reports (1999, 2004) finding the cleanup protective; residents later reported continuing health problems.
Defendants removed two early cases to federal court in 2013 on federal-question grounds; the district court remanded in August 2013; the remaining cases stayed in state court.
In January 2020 plaintiffs filed amended complaints adding three additional CERCLA-related sites as alleged exposure sources; defendants removed all 19 cases on Jan 31, 2020 asserting federal-officer and federal-question jurisdiction.
The district court remanded as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3); the Second Circuit affirmed, holding the 2020 removal untimely and therefore not reaching merit jurisdictional questions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3)	Removal untimely—original complaints already made removability ascertainable; amendment did not create new basis	Amendment created new facts and restarted 30-day clock	Held: Untimely—amendment did not change removability; removability was ascertainable earlier
Whether amended pleading first made case removable	Amended facts merely added sources of same injuries; did not create new removability	Amended pleading first established removability for federal-officer/federal-question grounds	Held: Amendment did not first establish removability; defendants conceded same at argument
Revival doctrine (successive removal)	Revival inapplicable; defendants get one removal absent a newly removable complaint	Revival doctrine would allow removal when amendment makes complaint essentially new	Held: Court declined to adopt revival here; even if applied, amendments were not substantial enough to constitute a new lawsuit
Effect of 2013 remand and duty to raise jurisdiction sua sponte	2013 remand does not bar defendants from later timely removal if statutory conditions met	2013 remand was conclusive as to removability and district court should have sua sponte considered federal-officer grounds	Held: Majority rejected defendants’ position; concurrence explained district courts need not sua sponte find unraised theories for removability; timeliness remains dispositive

Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402 (1969) (rationale for federal-officer removal)
Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana, 522 U.S. 470 (1998) (scope of federal-question removal)
BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 141 S. Ct. 1532 (2021) (appellate review may consider all grounds when federal-officer removal is asserted)
Taylor v. Medtronic, Inc., 15 F.4th 148 (2d Cir. 2021) (interpretation of § 1446(b)(3) and amended-pleading removal timing)
Cutrone v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 749 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2014) (30-day removal timing principles)
Agyin v. Razmzan, 986 F.3d 168 (2d Cir. 2021) (elements for federal-officer removal defense)
Johnson v. Heublein, Inc., 227 F.3d 236 (5th Cir. 2000) (revival doctrine permitting successive removal in narrow cases)
S.W.S. Erectors, Inc. v. Infax, Inc., 72 F.3d 489 (5th Cir. 1996) (new facts in later papers can change removability)
Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224 (2007) (policy against prolonged jurisdictional litigation after remand)
Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (1986) (federal jurisdiction cannot rest on plaintiff theories the plaintiff did not advance)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (burden on party asserting federal jurisdiction)