City of Walker v. Louisiana Ex Rel. Department of Transportation & Development
877 F.3d 563
5th Cir.2017Background
- August 2016 storms caused widespread flooding in southern Louisiana; plaintiffs allege a 2009 I-12 widening project ("Geaux Wider") installed a concrete median barrier that acted as an "artificial floodwall," worsening flooding in East Baton Rouge and Livingston Parishes.
- Appellees filed a class action in state court seeking damages and injunctive relief on behalf of three subclasses (governmental agencies, businesses, individuals) allegedly harmed by altered surface water flow.
- James Construction Group, LLC (a Geaux Wider contractor) removed the case to federal court asserting CAFA jurisdiction, federal-officer removal, and federal-question jurisdiction; plaintiffs moved to remand and the district court granted remand.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reviewed the remand as to CAFA and federal-officer grounds but dismissed review of the federal-question portion for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed remand under CAFA's local-controversy exception because a prior class action (Robertson) did not assert the same or similar factual allegations, and affirmed remand for lack of federal-officer removal because James Construction was not shown to be "acting under" a federal officer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court has CAFA jurisdiction or the local-controversy exception applies | Plaintiffs: the case fits the local-controversy exception (most plaintiffs and a key defendant are in-state; injuries occurred in-state; no substantially similar class action within 3 years) | James: CAFA jurisdiction exists; the prior Robertson class action is sufficiently similar so federal jurisdiction applies | Held: Robertson did not assert the same or similar facts (different project, different parish), so local-controversy exception applies; remand affirmed |
| Whether defendant could remove under the federal-officer statute (28 U.S.C. § 1442) | Plaintiffs: James was not "acting under" a federal officer; state DOT contracted for the work and FHWA oversight does not make the contractor a federal actor | James: federal funding, FHWA oversight, and performance to DOT specifications allowed removal; asserted government-contractor defense as a colorable federal defense | Held: James failed to show a procurement/contractor relationship with the federal government or that it was "acting under" a federal officer; remand affirmed |
| Whether the court of appeals may review the district court's federal-question remand ruling | Plaintiffs: remand order generally not reviewable; CAFA exception should not make the entire remand order appealable | James: CAFA exception permits appellate review of the entire remand order, including federal-question holdings | Held: Court lacks jurisdiction to review the federal-question portion; appeal dismissed as to that issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Savoie v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 817 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 2016) (remand-order review principles; §1447(d) exceptions)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (U.S. 2014) (CAFA appealability rule)
- Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588 (U.S. 2013) (CAFA jurisdictional requirements)
- Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 551 U.S. 142 (U.S. 2007) (limits of "acting under" federal-officer removal; regulatory supervision insufficient)
- Boyle v. United Techs. Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (U.S. 1988) (government-contractor defense principles)
- Zeringue v. Crane Co., 846 F.3d 785 (5th Cir. 2017) (elements for §1442 removal and precedent applying federal-officer removal to contractors)