274 F. Supp. 3d 1125
W.D. Wash.2017Background
- Washington sued Monsanto in King County Superior Court alleging statewide PCB contamination and state-law tort claims seeking natural-resource damages.
- Monsanto removed to federal court asserting federal officer removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) and federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal enclaves and CERCLA-related federal issues).
- Monsanto relied on wartime and postwar government interactions: Necessity Certificates for plant expansion, government specifications referencing Monsanto PCBs, some direct government purchases, and letters invoking the Defense Production Act to prioritize orders.
- Washington disavowed seeking relief for contamination on federal territory (no claims arising on federal enclaves) and argued CERCLA does not completely preempt its state-law claims.
- The Court reviewed Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court standards for federal-officer jurisdiction and federal-question removal, requiring a causal nexus to government direction and an actual federal question on the face of the complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal-officer removal under § 1442(a)(1) | Monsanto was not acting under federal officers; Washington’s claims arise from Monsanto’s independent conduct. | Monsanto produced PCBs at government direction, under Necessity Certificates, Defense Production Act orders, government specifications, and for military needs. | Denied — Monsanto failed to show a causal nexus that it produced/concealed PCBs pursuant to federal officers’ direction or control. |
| Sufficiency of government control/supervision | Government did not control Monsanto’s formulation, manufacture, or promotion of PCBs. | Government specifications, purchases, and priority letters demonstrate direction and control. | Denied — documents showed at most procurement interest or example specifications, not detailed government supervision of the challenged conduct. |
| Federal enclave jurisdiction | Washington does not seek recovery for damage to federal lands/waters. | Some contaminated sites are on or near federal territories, so claims may arise on federal enclaves. | Denied — Washington disavowed claims for federal territories, so claims do not arise on federal enclaves. |
| Federal-question jurisdiction / CERCLA preemption | Washington’s claims are state tort claims; CERCLA does not completely preempt state law and § 9614 preserves state remedies. | Natural-resource damage allegations implicate CERCLA and present a substantial federal issue. | Denied — CERCLA does not completely preempt; resolving state-law claims does not require deciding a federal question. |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., 551 U.S. 142 (statute protecting federal agents from state interference and framework for "acting under")
- Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. test for private-party federal-officer removal elements)
- Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247 (federal-enclave and federal-question removal principles)
- Cabalce v. Thomas E. Blanchard & Assocs., Inc., 797 F.3d 720 (no federal-officer removal where government did not control contractor’s tortious conduct)
- Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (well-pleaded complaint rule for federal-question jurisdiction)
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (test for incidental federal-question jurisdiction)
- Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. 245 (state law applies on federal enclaves absent inconsistent federal policy)