294 F. Supp. 3d 934
N.D. Cal.2018Background
- Multiple plaintiffs filed state-law nuisance and related claims against defendants; defendants removed the cases to federal court.
- Defendants argued removal was proper under multiple federal doctrines: federal common law, complete preemption, Grable federal-question jurisdiction, and several specialized statutory removal grounds (e.g., OCSLA, federal enclave, federal-officer, bankruptcy).
- Plaintiffs moved to remand to state court.
- The court evaluated whether any recognized basis for federal removal applied.
- The court granted the motions to remand, concluding none of defendants’ asserted federal-removal bases justified federal jurisdiction.
- The remand orders were stayed for 42 days to permit the parties to seek a short stay or interlocutory appeal; parties must submit a stipulated briefing schedule within 7 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does federal common law govern these claims and thus permit removal? | State-law nuisance claims are governed by state law. | Federal common law applies to interstate/foreign affairs aspects and supports federal jurisdiction. | No — federal common law does not govern these claims; removal on that basis fails. |
| Is there complete preemption converting state claims into federal claims and enabling removal? | No complete preemption; state causes survive. | Federal statutes/regulation displace state law, supporting complete preemption. | No — defendants identified no statute that completely preempts; CAA/CWA savings clauses weigh against exclusivity. |
| Does Grable federal-question jurisdiction apply (federal issue necessarily disputed, substantial, and capable of resolution in federal court)? | State courts can resolve any federal/preemption issues; no necessarily disputed federal question exists. | Federal regulatory scheme and potential foreign policy implications make federal issues substantial and necessary. | No — defendants did not show a specific, necessarily raised federal issue of the slim Grable category; generalized federal concerns insufficient. |
| Do specialized removal statutes (OCSLA, federal enclave, federal-officer, bankruptcy removal) provide a basis for removal? | These statutes do not apply; claims are local/public-safety actions for state courts. | Removal is justified under one or more specialized statutes due to aspects of defendants’ activities or bankruptcy plans. | No — plaintiffs’ claims lack the requisite nexus or locus for OCSLA/federal enclave/federal-officer jurisdiction; bankruptcy removal inapplicable given public-safety focus and insufficient nexus to plans. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005) (defines the narrow federal-question removal category)
- Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677 (2006) (limits Grable; federal element alone insufficient)
- Beneficial Nat'l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (2003) (discusses complete preemption doctrine)
- Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 551 U.S. 142 (2007) (federal-officer removal requires causal nexus)
- Sullivan v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 424 F.3d 267 (2d Cir. 2005) (examples of statutes that completely preempt state law)
- In re Deepwater Horizon, 745 F.3d 157 (5th Cir. 2014) (OCSLA removal requires claim to arise from OCS activities)
- Cabalce v. Thomas E. Blanchard & Assocs., Inc., 797 F.3d 720 (9th Cir. 2015) (federal-officer removal requires causal nexus to federal direction)
- City & Cty. of San Francisco v. PG&E Corp., 433 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2006) (bankruptcy-removal principles for public-safety suits)
- In re Wilshire Courtyard, 729 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 2013) (nexus requirement for bankruptcy-related removal)