City of Corona v. 3M Company
5:21-cv-01156
| C.D. Cal. | Aug 27, 2021Background:
- Plaintiffs (City of Corona and Corona Utility Authority) sued 3M in California state court seeking PFAS remediation costs for contaminated municipal water.
- 3M removed under the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), arguing its manufacture of MilSpec AFFF pursuant to government specifications makes it a "person acting under" a federal officer.
- Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing 3M failed to show a factual basis for federal-officer removal. 3M also sought a stay pending a JPML decision on transfer to the MilSpec AFFF MDL and filed a motion to dismiss.
- 3M relied heavily on statements made by plaintiffs' counsel in a related OCWD case to claim the Corona pleading necessarily encompassed MilSpec AFFF claims.
- The Court found 3M did not plead facts showing a causal nexus between MilSpec AFFF and Corona's alleged contamination (and failed to identify local AFFF sources); it therefore denied the stay and granted remand, and did not reach the motion to dismiss.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to stay proceedings pending JPML transfer | Court should decide remand first; stay only if remand denied | Stay to conserve judicial resources because MDL likely will resolve similar issues | Denied — issues here are case-specific; staying would not save judicial resources |
| Whether removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) was proper | 3M failed to show it was "acting under" a federal officer or a causal nexus to MilSpec AFFF | 3M contends MilSpec AFFF manufacture under federal specs supports removal; cites OCWD counsel statements | Remand granted — 3M did not allege sufficient factual causal nexus tying MilSpec AFFF to Corona contamination; reliance on another case's statements insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1946) (federal courts have inherent power to stay proceedings)
- Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (test for stay: prejudice to nonmovant, hardship to movant, judicial resources saved)
- Meyers v. Bayer AG, 143 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (E.D. Wis. 2001) (framework for preliminary scrutiny of remand motions when staying pending MDL transfer)
- CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265 (9th Cir. 1962) (factors for granting stays)
- Ohio Envtl. Council v. U.S. Dist. Court, 565 F.2d 393 (9th Cir. 1977) (burden on party seeking a stay)
- Jefferson Cnty. v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423 (1999) (removal under § 1442 may rest on a colorable federal defense)
- Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2006) (three-part test for a "person acting under" a federal officer)
- Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2014) (defendant bears burden to allege underlying facts for removal; evidentiary preponderance when plaintiff disputes factual basis)
- Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (2011) (federal courts must police their own subject-matter jurisdiction)