Joyce Johnson v. MFA Petroleum Company
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24791
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Johnson, Missouri consumer, sues MFA Petroleum, Casey’s General Stores, and QuikTrip under Missouri Merchandising Practices Act for misrepresenting gas grade.
- Allegation centers on single-hose blender pumps potentially delivering lower-grade gas after a higher-grade purchase.
- Class action on behalf of Missouri gasoline purchasers seeking damages and injunctive relief; defendants’ citizenship: Missouri, Iowa, and Oklahoma.
- Case removed to federal court by Casey’s arguing PMPA complete preemption or CAFA diversity; district court held PMPA preempts and denied remand.
- On appeal, Johnson challenges preemption ruling and seeks CAFA local controversy jurisdiction; court reverses on preemption and remands for CAFA considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does PMPA Subchapter II completely preempt the state claim? | Johnson argues no replacement federal right exists; preemption is ordinary, not complete. | Casey’s contends Subchapter II completely preempts by displacing state claims. | Not completely preempted; no federal jurisdiction on this basis. |
| Is complete preemption warranted without a federal private remedy under Subchapter II? | Johnson asserts no federal remedy requirement for complete preemption in PMPA context. | Casey’s relies on the doctrine requiring a federal replacement remedy to trigger complete preemption. | Not complete preemption; absence of a federal private remedy defeats jurisdiction. |
| Whether CAFA local controversy exception applies to the class action. | Johnson contends the local controversy exception applies due to Missouri-centric class and conduct. | Operators argue CAFA exception not properly developed in record; jurisdiction should be considered by district court. | Remand for district court to develop/consider CAFA jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2003) (complete preemption requires exclusive federal remedy and action)
- Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge No. 735, 390 U.S. 557 (U.S. 1968) (preemption defense; removal not automatic; replacement remedy matters)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (limits on complete preemption; context of field preemption)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1987) (well-pleaded complaint rule; federal question requires face of complaint)
- Gaming Corp. of Am. v. Dorsey & Whitney, 88 F.3d 536 (8th Cir. 1996) (distinguishes complete preemption from ordinary preemption; need for federal substitute remedy)
- First Nat’l Bank v. Aberdeen Nat’l Bank, 627 F.2d 843 (8th Cir. 1980) (en banc; defense of preemption generally not jurisdictional without replacement remedy)
- Lundeen v. Canadian Pacific Ry. Co., 447 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 2006) (FRSA context; FRSA special considerations for complete preemption)
- Alvarez v. Chevron Corp., 656 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2011) (PMPA Subchapter II similarity to Alvarez; complete preemption analysis)
- Peters v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 80 F.3d 257 (8th Cir. 1996) (FRSA preemption; exhaustion and available remedies influence jurisdiction)
- Chapman v. Lab One, 390 F.3d 620 (8th Cir. 2004) (FRSA preemption; private remedy considerations in complete preemption analysis)
- King v. Marriott Int’l Inc., 337 F.3d 421 (4th Cir. 2003) (federal remedy essential for complete preemption; lack undermines jurisdiction)
- Alvarez v. Chevron Corp., 656 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2011) (PMPA complete preemption discussion; resemblance to Johnson case)