64 F. Supp. 3d 872
E.D. La.2014Background
- Plaquemines Parish (also purporting to sue on behalf of the State of Louisiana) sued 19 oil & gas defendants in Louisiana state court under the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act (CZM Laws), alleging cumulative coastal damage from decades of operations and seeking restoration/remediation and fees (no injunction).
- Some defendants are non-diverse Louisiana citizens; defendants removed to federal court asserting diversity, OCSLA, maritime law, and federal-enclave federal-question jurisdiction.
- The Parish organized claims by an "Operational Area" grouping of oilfields and filed broadly to pursue a field‑level, cumulative remediation remedy rather than many individual permit suits.
- Defendants argued egregious misjoinder (sever to preserve diversity), that the Parish lacks authority to sue for State permits (so State is a nominal party), OCSLA applies because of connections to Outer Continental Shelf operations, maritime law/2011 removal amendments permit removal, and that parts of the Operational Area lie in a federal wildlife refuge (federal enclave).
- The court reviewed joinder rules, removal standards, OCSLA and enclave jurisprudence, and concluded defendants failed to carry their burden of proving a proper basis for removal. The action was remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims are misjoined so as to permit severance and preserve diversity | Joinder is proper because claims arise from a common cumulative injury and common remedy (field/Operational Area grouping) | Claims are unrelated (different permits, times, activities); alleged misjoinder is egregious and justifies severance | Joinder not shown to be without community of interest; even if misjoined, not "egregious" fraudulent joinder — no severance for jurisdictional purpose |
| Whether Parish may sue on behalf of State (effect on diversity) | CZM §49:214.36(D) authorizes local governments with approved programs to bring enforcement/restoration actions, including for state‑use/state‑permit violations within their parish | Statute does not expressly authorize a parish to enforce state permits or sue on behalf of the State; State presence destroys diversity | Court reads §49:214.36(D) to permit a parish to sue for state‑use/state‑permit violations in its parish (or at least to find ambiguity resolved for remand); State is real party in interest, destroying diversity |
| Whether OCSLA (43 U.S.C. §1349(b)(1)) confers federal jurisdiction | Not addressed as Parish: activities and injuries occurred in state waters; OCSLA should not apply absent OCS operation | OCSLA applies because onshore facilities/pipelines interconnect with OCS operations and damages would not have occurred but for OCS operations | OCSLA jurisdiction requires an operation conducted on the OCS for injury cases; here the injury‑causing acts occurred in state waters — connection too remote/attenuated; OCSLA not available |
| Whether federal enclave or maritime law or amended removal statute provide federal jurisdiction | Parish: claims are state‑law CZM enforcement claims; no federal question from enclave, and maritime applicability varies claim by claim | Defendants: parts of Operational Area lie in Delta National Wildlife Refuge (federal land) and some claims implicate admiralty; 2011 removal amendments allow admiralty removals | DNWR is not shown to be a federal enclave (no exclusive federal jurisdiction established); maritime jurisdiction not established across the board and admiralty removal theory rejected — removal improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Tapscott v. MS Dealer Serv. Corp., 77 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir.) (egregious‑misjoinder concept)
- In re Deepwater Horizon, 745 F.3d 157 (5th Cir. 2014) (OCSLA "but‑for" analysis; no artificial situs limit)
- Amoco Prod. Co. v. Sea Robin Pipeline Co., 844 F.2d 1202 (5th Cir.) (OCSLA jurisdiction in disputes that directly affect offshore production)
- Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co. v. Houston Cas. Ins. Co., 87 F.3d 150 (5th Cir.) (definition of "operation" for OCSLA jurisdiction)
- Mater v. Holley, 200 F.2d 123 (5th Cir.) (federal enclave doctrine and effect of exclusive jurisdiction on subject‑matter jurisdiction)
- James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134 (U.S.) (Clause 17 and scope of "needful buildings" for enclave acquisition)