104 F.4th 958
6th Cir.2024Background
- Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed suit in state court (Ingham County Circuit Court) in 2019 to enjoin Enbridge from operating its Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac, alleging violations of state law.
- Enbridge argued state claims were preempted by federal law (Pipeline Safety Act, Submerged Lands Act) and participated extensively in state court proceedings.
- In 2020, Michigan’s Governor filed a parallel lawsuit seeking to enforce revocation of the pipeline’s easement; Enbridge timely removed this second case to federal court based on federal-question jurisdiction.
- After the federal district court denied the Governor’s remand motion, Enbridge removed the Attorney General’s case to federal court—over two years after the original complaint was served.
- The Attorney General moved to remand on grounds of untimely removal and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the district court denied the motion and allowed the case to remain in federal court.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit addressed only the procedural question of whether Enbridge's removal was timely and whether equitable exceptions to removal deadlines apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nessel) | Defendant's Argument (Enbridge) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) | Removal was untimely under both 30-day windows. | Removal timely after federal court order in Gov. case. | Removal untimely; remand required. |
| Applicability of § 1446(b)(3) Exception | No later “paper” justified new 30-day removal window. | District court order in parallel case triggered new period. | Exception inapplicable; complaint was always removable. |
| Equitable Exceptions to Removal Deadlines | No equitable exceptions permitted by statute. | Equitable tolling should excuse delay. | No equitable exceptions; statute is mandatory. |
| Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Requirement | No federal jurisdiction over state-law claims. | Federal issues substantial, triggering jurisdiction. | Did not reach merits due to untimeliness of removal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (recognizing removal jurisdiction over state-law claims raising substantial federal issues)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (distinguishing when federal question jurisdiction arises for purposes of removal)
- Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (removal statutes must be strictly construed)
- Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (removal jurisdiction construction strict)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (no equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements)
- Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (courts have leeway in which threshold issues to address first)