Baker v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
745 F.3d 919
8th Cir.2014Background
- Eighteen Greenwood residents sued quarry defendants in state court for private nuisance, IIED, and negligence per se seeking damages; case removed to federal court, which enjoined plaintiffs from pursuing claims in any forum under All Writs Act; court denied remand and plaintiffs appealed.
- Prior federal litigation invalidated the City’s Ordinance restricting quarry traffic as unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause, leading to a 2008 permanent injunction against prohibiting all through traffic and a settlement designating Second Avenue for quarry traffic.
- Current state-court suit alleges state-law torts by residents along Second Avenue; no declaratory or injunctive relief requested.
- District court asserted federal-question or ancillary-jurisdiction supporting removal and issued an injunction under §1651; plaintiffs moved to remand; district court denied remand.
- Eighth Circuit held removal improper: no federal-question jurisdiction under Grable and related authorities, ancillary jurisdiction cannot support removal per Syngenta, and case must be remanded to state court; injunction vacated and remand ordered.
- The decision primarily implicates federalism and removal jurisdiction rather than merits of nuisance or damages claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal was proper under federal-question jurisdiction | Citizens | Quarry defendants | No federal-question jurisdiction; exclusive reliance on state law; Grable not satisfied |
| Whether ancillary jurisdiction justified removal | Citizens | Quarry defendants | No ancillary jurisdiction for removal per Syngenta; cannot bootstrap jurisdiction |
| Whether district court had subject-matter jurisdiction to remove | Citizens | Quarry defendants | Removal improper; court remanded to state court; injunction vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Grable & Sons Metal Prod. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (U.S. 2005) (federal issue must be necessarily involved in state-law claim for removal to lie)
- Cent. Iowa Power Coop. v. Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 561 F.3d 904 (8th Cir. 2009) (tests for embedded federal issues in state-law claims; Grable framework applied with caution)
- In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig., 591 F.3d 613 (8th Cir. 2010) (burden on removal; strict jurisdictional review)
- Nicodemus v. Union Pacific Corp., 440 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2006) (distinguishable; rights under federal statutes vs. injunctive order here)
- Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (U.S. 2002) (ancillary jurisdiction cannot serve as basis for removal)
- Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1996) (ancillary jurisdiction limitations; jurisdiction must attach first)
- Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470 (U.S. 1998) (preclusion defenses are not grounds for removal)