Cooper v. International Paper Co.
912 F. Supp. 2d 1307
S.D. Ala.2012Background
- This case was removed from the Circuit Court of Dallas County, Alabama; remand and dismissal motions are pending and addressed in order of jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs allege environmental harms from a Selma, Alabama paper mill operated by International Paper, asserting state-law tort claims including trespass, public nuisance, private nuisance, negligence, wantonness, negligence per se, and fraudulent suppression.
- IP removed the case to federal court invoking federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331; plaintiffs’ claims are framed as violations of federal and state environmental regulations.
- The court grants remand, holding there is no substantial federal question that would support arising-under jurisdiction; the case does not present a pure issue of federal law controlling multiple state-law claims.
- Discussion centers on whether the state-law claims turn on interpretation of disputed federal law, and whether savings clauses in federal environmental statutes preserve state-law claims.
- The court emphasizes that Congress’s savings clauses and the lack of a single, dispositive federal issue prevent federal jurisdiction and directs remand to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists under substantial federal question doctrine | IP bears the burden to show a substantial federal question underlying state claims. | IP argues that federal environmental statutes and regulatory framework create a substantial federal issue. | No; no substantive federal question justifies jurisdiction |
| Whether savings clauses preserve state-law claims and defeat removal | Savings clauses preserve rights under state law, enabling state claims to proceed. | IP contends federal regulation framework undermines state claims and supports removal. | Remand granted; savings clauses support state claims |
| Whether resolution of any claim would require construction of disputed federal law | State claims depend on applying federal standards to environmental regulation. | IP asserts that federal law interpretation is central to several claims. | Not sufficiently disputed or substantial to confer jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (Supreme Court 2005) (establishes the slim category for substantial federal-question jurisdiction)
- Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677 (Supreme Court 2006) (limits Grable and emphasizes fact-bound nature of some cases)
- Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg, 552 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2008) (recognizes limited scope of substantial federal question doctrine)
- Ayres v. General Motors Corp., 234 F.3d 514 (11th Cir. 2000) (interaction between federal statutes can make a federal question substantial)
- Dunlap v. G & L Holding Group, Inc., 381 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2004) (federal regulation as defense does not confer jurisdiction)
- MSOF Corp. v. Exxon Corp., 295 F.3d 485 (5th Cir. 2002) (savings clauses undercut federal-question arguments in environmental cases)