961 F.3d 381
5th Cir.2020Background
- March 2016 heavy rains caused flooding around the Toledo Bend Reservoir / Sabine River (border of Texas and Louisiana); ~300 property owners (Bonin plaintiffs) sued Sabine River Authority of Texas (SRA‑T) and Louisiana (SRA‑L) in Texas state court for takings.
- Plaintiffs later amended to add Entergy Texas, Entergy Louisiana, and Cleco (power companies) alleging negligence, nuisance, and trespass based on an agreement to operate/purchase power and an allegation that one hydroelectric generator was inoperable for months, worsening reservoir levels.
- Procedural history: case removed to federal court, remanded; later removed again by SRA‑T (Entergy consented; SRA‑L did not); magistrate and district court denied remand; plaintiffs amended to allege FERC license violations; a separate but similar Addison case was consolidated.
- Entergy moved to dismiss; the magistrate recommended dismissal of negligence on three independent grounds (no FERC‑license violation alleged, state law precludes private liability for floodwaters, lack of proximate causation) and dismissal of nuisance/trespass; district court adopted recommendation and dismissed Entergy claims.
- With Entergy dismissed, the district court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state constitutional takings claims against SRA‑T and SRA‑L and remanded those claims to Texas state court; plaintiffs appealed only the denial of remand and the negligence dismissal against Entergy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court had subject‑matter jurisdiction at removal (i.e., whether CAFA mass‑action jurisdiction applied) | No — claims are state law and CAFA's local‑event exception covers this flood because the action was filed in Texas | Yes — the suit qualifies as a CAFA "mass action" and the local‑event exception does not apply because the flooding occurred in both TX and LA | Held: Federal jurisdiction existed under CAFA; exception inapplicable because event occurred in both states (mass action jurisdiction affirmed) |
| Whether lack of SRA‑L's consent defeated removal | Removal improper because SRA‑L did not consent | CAFA eliminates unanimity requirement for mass actions (and alternatively SRA‑L was not properly served) | Held: SRA‑L consent not required under CAFA; removal proper |
| Whether Entergy's negligence claim should survive dismissal | Negligence claim should survive (plaintiffs challenged proximate cause only) | Dismissal proper for three independent reasons: no FERC‑license duty alleged; Texas law bars private liability for floodwaters; no proximate cause | Held: Dismissal affirmed — plaintiffs did not challenge two independent grounds (failure to allege FERC violation; state‑law immunity), so negligence claim fails (waived/challenges limited) |
| Whether remaining state claims should stay in federal court | Plaintiffs did not press this on appeal | District court declined supplemental jurisdiction and remanded remaining takings claims to state court | Held: Remand of remaining claims affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmons v. Sabine River Authority La., 732 F.3d 469 (5th Cir. 2013) (background on Toledo Bend project and FERC licensing)
- Cavallini v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 44 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 1995) (remand evaluated on state complaint as of removal)
- Robertson v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 814 F.3d 236 (5th Cir. 2015) (individual amount‑in‑controversy requirement under CAFA)
- Rainbow Gun Club, Inc. v. Denbury Onshore, L.L.C., 760 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2014) (definition of "event or occurrence" for CAFA exception)
- Frazier v. Pioneer Americas LLC, 455 F.3d 542 (5th Cir. 2006) (CAFA eliminated unanimity requirement for removal consent)
- Walch v. Adjutant Gen. Dep’t of Tex., 533 F.3d 289 (5th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635 (2009) (appealability of order declining supplemental jurisdiction/remand)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 592 F.3d 675 (5th Cir. 2009) (appellate courts may affirm for any proper reason supported by the record)
- United States v. Thibodeaux, 211 F.3d 910 (5th Cir. 2000) (failure to brief an argument constitutes waiver)