393 F.Supp.3d 142
D.R.I.2019Background
- Rhode Island sued multiple energy companies in state court under eight state-law theories (nuisance, etc.) seeking damages and equitable relief for climate-change harms to state infrastructure, coastline, natural resources, and fiscal health.
- The State alleges defendants extracted and sold large quantities of fossil fuels, knew of harms decades ago, and engaged in misinformation to delay transition to renewables.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court, invoking various federal-jurisdiction theories (federal-question removal, federal common law, Clean Air Act displacement/complete preemption, Grable, Outer Continental Shelf, federal-enclave, federal-officer, bankruptcy, admiralty).
- The State moved to remand; the central question became whether any federal statute or doctrine supports removal.
- The district court analyzed general removal (§ 1441/§ 1331 under the well-pleaded complaint rule and artful-pleading doctrines) and several specialized bases for removal, and concluded defendants failed to meet the burden to show federal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question removal is proper under the well-pleaded complaint / artful-pleading doctrines | State relies solely on state-law claims; no federal question on face of complaint | Claims are effectively federal: federal common law governs interstate air/water; CAA (or foreign-affairs) displaces/state-law claims (complete preemption) | Denied — complaint is well-pleaded and state-law; defendants failed to show complete preemption or conversion to federal claims |
| Whether Grable (substantial, disputed federal issue) supports removal | State: no essential federal element; rights/duties supplied by state law | Defendants point to embedded federal issues (foreign affairs, federal regs, navigable waters) | Denied — no federal issue is necessarily presented by the state-law claims; potential federal questions are defenses or ancillary |
| Whether federal common law displaces state nuisance claims (including via CAA) | State contends CAA and federal law do not completely preempt state remedies; states retain primary role | Defendants argue federal common law (and CAA) govern transboundary emissions and thus preempt/replace state claims | Denied — federal environmental common law does not completely preempt these state claims; CAA does not evince exclusive federal cause of action and preserves state authority |
| Whether specialized removal statutes/jurisdictional doctrines apply (Outer Continental Shelf, federal-enclave, federal-officer, bankruptcy, admiralty) | State: these bespoke grounds do not apply to alleged state-law harms and do not supply jurisdiction | Defendants invoke each as an independent basis for federal jurisdiction | Denied — defendants failed to show necessary causal nexus or statutory requirements for any special federal removal ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (removal construed narrowly against removal)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (well-pleaded complaint rule)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (artful-pleading doctrine)
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (federal-question removal for substantial embedded federal issue)
- Am. Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (Clean Air Act displaces some federal common-law claims re: emissions)
- Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (complete preemption requires congressional intent to provide exclusive federal cause of action)
- Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (complete preemption transmogrifies state claim into federal claim)
- Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (limits Grable to cases where federal law is necessary element of state claim)
- Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (removal statutes strictly construed)