388 F. Supp. 3d 538
D. Maryland2019Background
- Baltimore City sued multiple fossil-fuel companies asserting Maryland public-nuisance and related state-law claims for harms from climate change (complaint alleges extraction, promotion, sale, and concealment over decades).
- Defendants removed to federal court invoking multiple federal jurisdiction theories: federal common law, Grable (substantial federal question), complete preemption (Clean Air Act and foreign affairs), federal enclave jurisdiction, OCSLA, federal-officer removal (28 U.S.C. § 1442), bankruptcy removal (28 U.S.C. § 1452), and admiralty.
- The City moved to remand to state court; the district court analyzed whether any asserted federal basis supported removal.
- Central legal constraints: the well-pleaded complaint rule (plaintiff is master of its claim), the narrow Grable/Gunn exception, and the rare doctrine of complete preemption.
- Court treated many defendant arguments as veiled preemption defenses but required either complete preemption or a Grable-level federal issue to sustain removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal common law supports removal | City: claims pleaded under Maryland law only; no federal common-law claim pled | Defs: public nuisance implicates uniquely federal interests and thus federal common law governs | Court: Rejected — plaintiff pleaded state law; defendants advanced an ordinary preemption argument not establishing federal-origin claim or complete preemption |
| Whether a substantial/disputed federal issue (Grable) exists | City: nuisance elements are state-law questions; federal law at most a defense | Defs: claims necessarily raise substantial federal issues (foreign affairs, regulatory cost-benefit, navigable waters, federal disclosure duties) | Court: Rejected — defendants failed to show any federal issue is a necessary element; Grable factors not satisfied |
| Whether claims are completely preempted (CAA or foreign-affairs) | City: no congressional intent to make federal remedies exclusive; state causes preserved | Defs: CAA or foreign-affairs doctrine displace state causes and provide exclusive federal scheme | Court: Rejected — CAA contains savings clauses preserving state claims; foreign-affairs doctrine is judicially created and does not show congressional intent to make remedies exclusive |
| Whether other asserted bases (federal enclaves, OCSLA, §1442 federal-officer, §1452 bankruptcy, admiralty) support removal | City: claims arise in Baltimore and seek public-law relief; not predominantly based on federal-enclave, OCSLA, or vessel-caused injuries; police-power exception bars bankruptcy removal | Defs: some activities occurred on federal enclaves/OCS; acted under federal direction; related to past bankruptcies; some offshore activity/vessels | Held: Court rejected all — enclave theory fails (locus not federal enclaves); OCSLA not shown under but-for test; §1442 lacks causal nexus to federal direction; §1452 not applicable (close-nexus lacking and police/regulatory exception); admiralty not met (no proximate vessel-caused injury) |
Key Cases Cited
- Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013) (defines narrow Grable "special and small" category for federal jurisdiction over state-law claims)
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005) (articulates substantial federal question test)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (well-pleaded complaint rule; federal defenses do not support removal)
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (1987) (complete preemption doctrine examples)
- Beneficial Nat'l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (2003) (complete preemption standard; exclusive federal cause of action required)
- American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011) (Clean Air Act displaces federal common-law nuisance claims for CO2 abatement)
- Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (1986) (caution against expansive federal jurisdiction at Grable outer reaches)
- Pinney v. Nokia Inc., 402 F.3d 428 (4th Cir. 2005) (substantial federal question and removal principles in Fourth Circuit)