Thompson v. Army and Air Force Exchange Service
3:22-cv-02799
S.D. Ill.Jun 29, 2023Background
- Linda Thompson filed a putative class action in Illinois state court against the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), an instrumentality of the U.S. Department of Defense.
- AAFES removed the case to federal court; Thompson moved to remand and AAFES moved to dismiss. The Court denied remand and granted dismissal.
- The dismissal was grounded on lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction due to Thompson’s lack of standing.
- Thompson timely filed a post‑judgment motion to alter the judgment; the Court treated it under Rule 59(e) because it was filed within 28 days.
- The Court considered whether federal‑officer removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 requires a plausible/colorable federal defense, discussing City of Cookeville and Hammer and concluding removal was proper (and that AAFES asserted sovereign immunity and lack of standing as defenses).
- The Court denied Thompson’s Rule 59(e) motion, finding no manifest error of law or newly discovered evidence that would warrant altering the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper post‑judgment vehicle | Motion should alter judgment (implicitly alleging error) | Motion is subject to Rule 59(e) standard; no manifest error/new evidence | Treated under Rule 59(e); motion denied |
| Standard for Rule 59(e) relief | Court committed manifest error or overlooked evidence | Relief requires clear manifest error or newly discovered evidence; mere reargument insufficient | Court applied Rule 59(e) standards and found none met |
| Whether § 1442 federal‑officer removal requires a colorable federal defense | Cites Hammer to argue a plausible/colorable defense is required | Relies on Cookeville: plain text permits removal when action is against U.S. or its agency; no extra requirement | Court found Cookeville persuasive; even if colorable defense required, AAFES raised sovereign immunity and lack of standing as colorable defenses |
| Dismissal for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction (standing) | Remand/dismissal improper | Thompson lacks standing; federal court lacked jurisdiction | Dismissal affirmed for lack of standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Mares v. Busby, 34 F.3d 533 (7th Cir. 1994) (motions filed within 28 days treated as Rule 59(e))
- Blue v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 698 F.3d 587 (7th Cir. 2012) (Rule 59(e) standards for altering judgment)
- Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433 F.3d 542 (7th Cir. 2006) (Rule 59(e) authority cited for standards)
- Moro v. Shell Oil Co., 91 F.3d 872 (7th Cir. 1996) (purpose of Rule 59(e) to correct court’s own errors)
- County of McHenry v. Ins. Co. of the West, 438 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 2006) (reargument must do more than rehash rejected arguments)
- City of Cookeville v. Upper Cumberland Elec. Membership Corp., 484 F.3d 380 (6th Cir. 2007) (interpreting § 1442 to permit removal when action is against U.S. or an agency)
- Hammer v. United States HHS, 905 F.3d 517 (7th Cir. 2018) (removed case; noted HHS raised a colorable defense but did not decide whether one is required)
- Jefferson Cnty., Ala. v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423 (1999) (rejecting narrow interpretation of colorable‑defense requirement under § 1442)
- Ruppel v. CBS Corp., 701 F.3d 1176 (7th Cir. 2012) (colorable federal defense need not be clearly sustainable)