521 F.Supp.3d 863
N.D. Cal.2021Background
- Earth Island Institute sued multiple consumer-product companies in San Mateo County Superior Court alleging that defendants’ plastic products and recycling labeling caused plastic pollution harming California waterways and coasts.
- Claims pleaded under California law: public nuisance, strict products liability (failure-to-warn and design defect), negligence, breach of express warranty, and CLRA.
- Defendants removed to federal court asserting federal-question jurisdiction on four independent grounds: (1) federal common law governs interstate pollution/public nuisance; (2) Grable/Grunn substantial federal-question; (3) federal enclave jurisdiction; and (4) admiralty/maritime jurisdiction.
- Plaintiff moved to remand; briefing and a hearing were held.
- The district court rejected each federal-jurisdiction theory and granted the motion to remand to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal common law displaces Plaintiff’s state-law nuisance and related claims (complete preemption) | Earth Island pleaded only state-law claims and did not invoke federal law; federal common law does not completely preempt state causes of action absent clear congressional intent | Federal common law governs transborder pollution/public nuisance and thus displaces state law, making claims removable | Rejected — federal common law does not completely preempt these state-law claims; removal on that basis improper |
| Whether a substantial, disputed federal question (Grable) supports removal | No substantial federal issue is necessarily raised; claims are fact-bound state-law torts | Claims implicate significant federal interests/policies (e.g., pollution prevention) so federal jurisdiction is proper under Grable | Rejected — the claims do not present the ‘‘special and small’’ category of substantial federal issues required for Grable jurisdiction |
| Whether federal enclave jurisdiction applies (claims arising on federal enclaves) | Claims arise in California state waterways and coasts, not on federal enclaves | Some affected waterways are on/adjacent to federal enclaves, so federal enclave jurisdiction exists | Rejected — defendants failed to show the locus of the alleged harm occurred on any federal enclave |
| Whether admiralty/maritime jurisdiction exists | Tort/injury situs is California waterways; plaintiff’s focus is local coastal harm | Allegations of plastic accumulation in oceans and waterways create a maritime/admiralty case | Rejected — plaintiff’s pleaded injuries concern California waterways/coasts; defendants did not establish the situs or maritime nexus needed for admiralty jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011) (federal common law may govern interstate air/water pollution but can be displaced by federal statutes)
- Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91 (1972) (federal common law applies to ambient/interstate air and water pollution)
- City of Milwaukee v. Illinois and Michigan, 451 U.S. 304 (1981) (Clean Water Act displaced federal common-law remedies for point-source water pollution addressed by the Act)
- Native Village of Kivalina v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 696 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2012) (federal common law can apply to transboundary pollution but may be displaced by statutes)
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods. v. Darue Eng’g, 545 U.S. 308 (2005) (federal-issue jurisdiction over state-law claims requires a necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial federal issue)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (well-pleaded complaint rule; plaintiff is master of the claim)
- Beneficial Nat. Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (2003) (doctrine and narrow scope of complete preemption)
- City of Oakland v. BP PLC, 960 F.3d 570 (9th Cir. 2020) (applying Grable to public-nuisance/global-warming claims; remand where federal issue not substantial)
- Rhode Island v. Chevron Corp., 393 F. Supp. 3d 142 (D.R.I. 2019) (remand where federal common law/CAA did not completely preempt state nuisance claims)
- State of New Mexico v. Monsanto, 454 F. Supp. 3d 1132 (D.N.M. 2020) (remand; federal common law did not completely preempt state PCB-related nuisance claims)