558 F.Supp.3d 191
D.N.J.2021Background
- Hoboken sued multiple oil and gas companies in New Jersey state court seeking remediation and damages for harms allegedly caused by climate change, alleging a decades-long misinformation and greenwashing campaign that increased fossil‑fuel consumption and contributed to sea‑level rise and flooding.
- Causes of action: public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, negligence, and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
- Chevron (and co‑defendants) removed to federal court asserting multiple bases: federal‑question jurisdiction (including Clean Air Act/ federal common law/preemption/Grable), OCSLA jurisdiction, federal‑officer removal, federal enclave jurisdiction, and CAFA.
- Hoboken moved to remand; defendants also moved to strike parts of Hoboken’s reply. The Court considered briefs without oral argument.
- The District Court held removal statutes are narrowly construed, rejected each asserted federal jurisdictional ground, granted Hoboken’s motion to remand to New Jersey state court, and denied the motion to strike (but declined to consider new arguments in the reply brief).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal‑question jurisdiction (well‑pleaded complaint / complete preemption) | Hoboken pleaded only state law claims; no federal cause of action is alleged. | Defendants contend claims are completely preempted by the Clean Air Act or arise under federal common law (and thus are federal). | Rejected: no complete preemption shown; ordinary preemption/ federal common law is a defense, not a basis for removal. |
| Grable / "substantial federal issue" jurisdiction | Hoboken: recovery depends on state law nuisance elements, not federal law. | Defendants: federal issues (e.g., regulatory balancing, First Amendment limits) are necessarily raised and substantial. | Rejected: federal issues are not necessarily raised in the complaint; Grable does not apply. |
| OCSLA jurisdiction | Hoboken: injuries are effects in Hoboken from global emissions. | Defendants: some production originated on the Outer Continental Shelf, so claims are connected to OCS operations. | Rejected: connection is too attenuated; defendants failed to show but‑for causation tied to OCS operations. |
| Federal‑officer removal (§ 1442) | Hoboken: defendants acted independently in marketing and misinformation, not at government direction. | Defendants: historical leases, Elk Hills reserve, military fuel contracts and other government relationships show they acted under federal direction or control. | Rejected: alleged misinformation/marketing is not an act under color of federal office; cited federal relationships too remote to satisfy § 1442. |
| Federal enclave jurisdiction & CAFA | Hoboken: injuries occurred in Hoboken; action is not a Rule 23 class action. | Defendants: some conduct occurred on federal enclaves and CAFA diversity exists. | Rejected: locus of injury is Hoboken, not federal enclave; CAFA inapplicable because this is not a class action under Rule 23. |
| Motion to strike reply arguments | Hoboken: raised costs under § 1447(c) and collateral estoppel in reply. | Defendants: new arguments in reply should be stricken. | Denied (procedurally improper under Rule 12(f)); Court nonetheless declined to consider new reply arguments on remand motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir.) (burden on removing party to establish federal jurisdiction)
- Boyer v. Snap‑On Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108 (3d Cir.) (resolve removal doubts in favor of remand)
- Batoff v. State Farm Ins. Co., 977 F.2d 848 (3d Cir.) (strict construction of removal statutes)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts presume lack of jurisdiction)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (federal defense, including preemption, does not authorize removal)
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods. v. Darue Eng’g, 545 U.S. 308 (2005) (narrow Grable federal‑issue exception to well‑pleaded complaint rule)
- Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013) (four‑part test for substantial federal issue jurisdiction)
- BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 141 S. Ct. 1532 (2021) (scope of appellate review of remand orders removed under § 1442 or § 1443)
- Rhode Island v. Chevron Corp., 979 F.3d 50 (1st Cir.) (rejecting federal‑officer removal in related climate suits)
- Mayor & City Council of Balt. v. BP P.L.C., 952 F.3d 452 (4th Cir.) (similar rejection of federal‑officer removal)
- City of Oakland v. BP PLC, 969 F.3d 895 (9th Cir.) (Clean Air Act does not completely preempt state nuisance claims)