The Lamar Company, LLC v. The Mississippi Transportation Commission
1:17-cv-00149
| S.D. Miss. | May 14, 2018Background
- Lamar Company, LLC operates outdoor advertising signs in Mississippi and sought to reconfigure an existing sign in May 2015.
- Mississippi Transportation Commission (MTC), via MDOT, refused to approve the reconfiguration, deeming the sign a nonconforming structure because of its height under Miss. Code Ann. § 49-23-9(2)(b) and MDOT regulations.
- Lamar filed suit in Harrison County Chancery Court (April 4, 2017) seeking interpretation of the state statute and MDOT rule and asserting a takings claim under Article 3, § 17 of the Mississippi Constitution (state-law takings claim).
- MTC removed the case to federal court asserting federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
- The district court noted that Lamar’s state-court complaint pleads no federal causes of action and that the takings claim invokes only state law, prompting sua sponte concern about subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court ordered the parties to brief whether the district court has subject-matter jurisdiction and warned that remand is required if jurisdiction is lacking under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal district court has federal-question jurisdiction over this removed case | Lamar framed claims as state-law statutory interpretation and a state constitutional takings claim (no federal cause of action alleged) | MTC removed asserting federal-question jurisdiction (contends federal jurisdiction exists) | Court found the face of the complaint raises no federal claim and therefore questioned the propriety of federal jurisdiction and ordered briefs on the issue |
| Whether the court must remand if it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction | Lamar implicitly argues the Court lacks a federal question because claims are state-law based | MTC implicitly argues removal was proper (court did not accept removal at face value) | Court reiterated that federal courts must address jurisdiction sua sponte and that remand is required if jurisdiction is lacking; directed parties to brief jurisdictional question |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Comm’rs v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., 850 F.3d 714 (5th Cir. 2017) (federal-question test: federal law must create the cause of action or the right to relief must necessarily depend on a substantial federal question)
- Singh v. Duane Morris LLP, 538 F.3d 334 (5th Cir. 2008) (clarifying when a well-pleaded complaint raises a federal question)
- Giles v. NYLCare Health Plans, Inc., 172 F.3d 332 (5th Cir. 1999) (federal courts must address subject-matter jurisdiction when raised and may do so sua sponte)
- Gasch v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 491 F.3d 278 (5th Cir. 2007) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and must be examined regardless of the parties’ conduct)