Cameron v. Auster Oil & Gas Inc
2:18-cv-00677
W.D. La.Dec 22, 2022Background
- Several Louisiana parishes sued dozens of oilfield companies under the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act (SLCRMA), alleging pre‑SLCRMA dredging, drilling, and waste‑disposal practices that were not "lawfully commenced."
- Defendants removed to federal court invoking federal‑officer removal (28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)) and federal‑question jurisdiction; earlier remands rejected admiralty, OCSLA, and § 1331 bases and remanded some cases to state court.
- Defendants later argued wartime federal control (Petroleum Administration for War and related directives) required or directed the challenged practices, or that upstream producers were subcontractors/suppliers to government‑contracted refineries—supporting § 1442 removal.
- The Fifth Circuit vacated this Court’s initial remand and directed reconsideration in light of Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, which relaxed the prior ‘‘causal nexus’’ test for § 1442 removal.
- After supplemental briefing and reviewing the record, the district court found only evidence of regulation/compliance and supplier relationships—not the direct control, contractual subcontractor relationship, or government‑directed acts required for § 1442 removal—and thus remanded the cases to state court (stay 20 days to permit appeal).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1442(a)(1) federal‑officer removal applies ("acting under" prong) | Plaintiffs: defendants only complied with federal regulation; no subjection, guidance, or control by a federal officer | Defendants: wartime PAW directives and other federal regulation controlled industry practices, so defendants acted under federal officers | Held: No. Record shows regulation/compliance, not the detailed control or direction required; "acting under" not satisfied |
| Whether Latiolais's relaxed "connection or association" test permits removal | Plaintiffs: Latiolais does not help because no connection/association to acts taken at federal direction exists | Defendants: Latiolais permits broader removal by linking upstream producers to downstream government‑contracted refineries | Held: Latiolais does not change result; no factual showing of a connection or association to federal‑directed acts |
| Whether supplier/subcontractor relationships to government‑contracted refineries make defendants "acting under" federal officers | Plaintiffs: mere supplier relationships and compliance do not create subcontractor status or federal control | Defendants: upstream producers were effectively government subcontractors to refineries supporting the war effort | Held: No. Mere supplier relationships are insufficient; no evidence of contracts or independent federal control over producers |
| Whether federal‑question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331) or timeliness support federal jurisdiction | Plaintiffs: no federal question; removal untimely | Defendants: asserted § 1331 and timely removal based on expert report | Held: Fifth Circuit already affirmed no § 1331 jurisdiction here; removal was timely but no federal jurisdiction exists, so remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, 951 F.3d 286 (5th Cir. 2020) (abandoning strict causal‑nexus test and requiring that charged conduct be "connected or associated" with acts pursuant to a federal officer)
- Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., 551 U.S. 142 (2007) (compliance with federal regulation alone does not satisfy § 1442 "acting under" requirement)
- Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121 (1989) (federal‑law defense can authorize removal under federal‑officer statute)
- Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co., 149 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. 1998) (government contractor compelled by contract/specifications to produce Agent Orange satisfied "acting under")
- Zeringue v. Crane Co., 846 F.3d 785 (5th Cir. 2017) (Navy contract specifications mandating asbestos use supported "acting under")
- In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prod. Liab. Litig., 480 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2007) (statutory/regulatory mandate to oxygenate gasoline did not require a specific additive; regulation alone did not establish "acting under")