901 F. Supp. 2d 654
E.D. Va.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Shelley and Joe Federico filed suit in state court for property damages and personal injuries arising from mold and moisture conditions in military housing.
- Defendants Lincoln Military Housing LLC, Mid-Atlantic Military Family Communities LLC, and LPC Property Management, Inc. removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441, 1442, and 1446.
- The case concerns a public-private venture (MHPI) governing Norfolk housing where the Navy owns land and assets, with private entities operating and maintaining the housing.
- Norwich Manor sits on land with concurrent federal and Virginia jurisdiction; the Ground Lease, Operating Agreement, and Property Management Agreement govern the relationship and allocations of control, funding, and liability.
- Plaintiffs’ claims include breach of contract, negligence, and negligence per se; damages sought total substantial sums including $3.5 million for personal injuries.
- The court analyzes whether federal enclave jurisdiction exists and whether removal was proper, ultimately denying remand and affirming federal jurisdiction due to substantial federal interests in the MHPI setup.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal enclave jurisdiction supports removal of state-law claims. | Federico argues concurrent Virginia jurisdiction precludes federal jurisdiction. | Defendants contend federal enclave jurisdiction exists despite concurrent jurisdiction. | Federal enclave jurisdiction exists; removal proper. |
| Whether concurrent jurisdiction defeats federal question jurisdiction on a federal enclave. | Plaintiffs assert concurrent jurisdiction bars federal jurisdiction over state-law claims. | Defendants argue substantial federal interests justify federal jurisdiction. | Concurrent jurisdiction does not automatically defeat federal question jurisdiction when substantial federal interests are present. |
| Whether the Navy’s involvement creates substantial federal interests warranting federal jurisdiction. | Navy involvement does not change state-law claim nature. | Navy’s control and financial interests implicate federal concerns. | Yes, substantial federal interests exist; supports jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mater v. Holley, 200 F.2d 123 (5th Cir.1952) (federal enclave jurisdiction can govern private claims arising on ceded lands when exclusive jurisdiction exists or was ceded)
- Stokes v. Adair, 265 F.2d 662 (4th Cir.1959) (concurrent jurisdiction does not preclude federal jurisdiction for enclave tort actions)
- Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir.2006) (enclave jurisdiction may apply to torts arising on federal enclaves; removal permitted)
- Akin v. Ashland Chemical Co., 156 F.3d 1030 (10th Cir.1998) (federal enclave jurisdiction exists over enclave tort claims when substantial federal interests are at stake)
- Fowler v. Dodson, 159 F.Supp. 101 (E.D. Pa.1958) (ceded lands with concurrent jurisdiction; discussion of Virginia’s reservation of civil jurisdiction)
- Pratt v. Kelly, 585 F.2d 692 (4th Cir.1978) (Virginia ceded land with concurrent jurisdiction; §457 not extending federal jurisdiction over civil actions absent exclusive enclave)
- Sylvane v. Whelan, 506 F.Supp. 1355 (E.D.N.Y.1981) (state ceded concurrent jurisdiction; state law not federal law on ceded lands in some contexts)
- Melendez v. Glastic Corp., No. 2:95CV1112, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4537 (E.D.Va.1996) (district court's view on concurrent jurisdiction; distinguished from Akin-based approach; court ultimately considered federal enclave factors to determine jurisdiction)
- Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfax County v. United States, 408 F.Supp. 556 (E.D.Va.1976) (concurrent civil jurisdiction reserved by state had implications for federal jurisdiction analyses)