503 F. App'x 157
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Plaintiffs are four groups of Norwegian citizens (123 total) who sued Conoco in Delaware state court for injuries while working on North Sea rigs, platforms, and vessels.
- Conoco removed the four suits to federal court under CAFA and for federal-question jurisdiction, and moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds.
- The District Court invoked Sinochem to bypass jurisdictional inquiry and dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, rather than remand for lack of jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs argued for remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the court must address jurisdiction sua sponte when raised.
- CAFA provides removal for class actions and mass actions but excludes claims joined on defendant’s motion; plaintiffs’ suits each involve fewer than 100 persons.
- The court concluded CAFA does not confer removal jurisdiction and that federal-question jurisdiction does not exist; jurisdictional issues are non-waivable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAFA removal jurisdiction? | CAFA mass-action removal applies since claims are jointed for common questions. | Each suit has fewer than 100 plaintiffs; none qualifies as a mass action; removal improper. | CAFA does not provide removal jurisdiction. |
| Federal-question jurisdiction based on foreign-relations? | Federal questions arise from private disputes affecting foreign relations. | Foreign-relations jurisdiction requires government intervention; not present here. | No federal-question jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sinochem Int’l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007) (priority of jurisdictional dismissal when jurisdiction is readily determinable; use forum non conveniens if not)
- Nesbit v. Gears Unlimited, Inc., 347 F.3d 72 (3d Cir. 2003) (non-waivable subject-matter jurisdiction; court may raise sua sponte)
- Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 862 F.2d 38 (3d Cir. 1988) (presumption against removal jurisdiction; deference to plaintiff's forum choice)
- Steel Valley Auth. v. Union Switch & Signal Div., 809 F.2d 1006 (3d Cir. 1987) (deference to forum and limits on removal jurisdiction)
- Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1 (2000) (statutory interpretation guiding CAFA's scope and jurisdiction)