Follow
Publications: 120 | Followers: 1

Team 1 – Defendants Arguments for Removal

Publish on Category: Birds 0

Team 1 – Defendants Arguments for Removal
County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. 2017 WL 3699867 (N.D.Cal.)
Background: Plaintiff Claims
Alleged Injuries relating to climate change asserted under:Public NuisancePrivate NuisanceStrict Liability for Failure to WarnStrict Liability for Design DefectNegligenceNegligence for Failure to WarnTrespassPublic Nuisance on Behalf of the People of the State of California
Overview: Seven Independent Alternative Grounds for Removal
1. Federal Question[28 USC § 1331]& Court of Original Jurisdiction[28 USC §1441(a)]2. The Action Necessarily Raises Disputed & Substantial Federal Questions that a Federal Court could Entertain Without Disturbing the Balance of Responsibilities between Federal and State Courts3. Plaintiff’s claims are Completely Preempted by the Clean Air Act[CAA]and/or Other Federal Statutes and the US Constitution which provide Exclusive Federal Remedy for Plaintiffs Seeking Stricter Regulations on Nation/Worldwide Greenhouse Gas Emissions4. Federal Court has Original Jurisdiction pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act[OCSLA]because the action ”aris[es] out of, or in connection with (A) any operation conducted on the outer Continental Shelf which involves exploration, development, or production of the minerals, or the subsoil or seabed of the outer Continental Shelf, or which involves rights to such minerals.”[43 USC § 1349(b)]5. Assuming the truth of the Plaintiffs allegations, a Casual Nexus Exists between their Actions, pursuant to a federal officers directions, and Plaintiff’s claims, they are “persons” within the meaning of the statute, and can assert several colorable federal defenses.SeeLeitev. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2014)6. Plaintiff’s Claims are based on Alleged Injuries to and/or Conduct on Federal Enclaves pursuant toUS Constitution art. I, § 8, cl. 177. Authorized under28 USC § 1452(a)and28 USC 1334(b)because Plaintiff’s state-law claims are related to cases underTitle 11 of the United States Code
1. The Court has Federal-Question Jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s Claims Arise (if at all) under Federal Common Law
Federal Question[28 USC § 1331]& Court of Original Jurisdiction[28 USC §1441(a)]The Plaintiff’s claims are governed by Federal Common Law not State Common Law, and are properly removed to federal court28 USC 1331grants Federal Courts original jurisdiction over “claims founded upon federal common law as well as those of statutory origin.”Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., 696 F.3d 849, 855 (9th Cir. 2012)The Ninth Circuit held that federal common law applies to comparable claims of global warming–related tort claims necessarily means that state law should not apply to those types of claims.Federal common law applies only in those few areas of the law that so implicate“uniquely federal interests”that application of state law is affirmatively inappropriate.
2. The Action is Removable because it Raises Disputed and Substantial Federal Issues
The Action Necessarily Raises Disputed & Substantial Federal Questions that aFederal Court could Entertain Without Disturbing the Balance of Responsibilities between Federal and State CourtsFederal district courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”28 U.S.C. § 1331.The Supreme Court has held that suits apparently alleging only state-law causes of action nevertheless “arise under” federal law if the “state-law claim[s] necessarily raise a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.”Grable, 545 U.S. at 314.The crux of the Defenses argument is that this on localized area is trying to hold a national industry responsible for the alleged consequences of rising ocean levels allegedly caused by global climate changeThe issues of greenhouse gas emissions, global warming, and sea level rising are not unique to the County of San Mateo, the State of California, or even the United States.
3. The Action is Removable because it is Completely Preempted by Federal Law
Plaintiff’s claims are Completely Preempted by the Clean Air Act[CAA]and/or Other Federal Statutes and the US Constitution which provide Exclusive Federal Remedy for Plaintiffs Seeking Stricter Regulations on Nation/Worldwide Greenhouse Gas EmissionsA state cause of action is preempted under this“complete preemption” doctrinewhere:A federal statutory scheme “provide[s] the exclusive cause of action for the claim asserted and also set[s] forth procedures and remedies governing that cause of action.”Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 8 (2003).A determination that the state-law cause of action falls within the scope of the federal cause of action, including where it “duplicates, supplements, or supplants” that cause of action.AetnaHealth Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 209 (2004)Defense Argument on these points:TheCAA provides the exclusive cause of actionfor challenging the EPA RulemakingsThe Plaintiff asserted state-law causes of actionduplicate, supplements, and/or supplant the federal cause of action
4. The Action is Removable Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act[OCSLA]
Federal Court has Original Jurisdiction pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act[OCSLA]because the action ”aris[es] out of, or in connection with (A) any operation conducted on the outer Continental Shelf which involves exploration, development, or production of the minerals, or the subsoil or seabed of the outer Continental Shelf, or which involves rights to such minerals.”[43 USC § 1349(b)]“Congress intended for the judicial power of the United States to be extended to the entire range of legal disputes that it knew would arise relating to resource development on the [OCS].”Laredo Offshore Constructors, Inc. v. Hunt Oil. Co., 754 F.2d 1223, 1228 (5th Cir. 1985).Courts repeatedly have found OCSLA jurisdiction where resolution of the dispute foreseeably could affect the efficient exploitation of minerals from the OCS.A substantial part of Plaintiff’s claims “‘arise[] out of, or in connection with,” Defendants’ “operation[s] ‘conducted on the outer Continental Shelf” that involve “the exploration and production of minerals.”Plaintiff relief sought also arises out of and impacts OCS extraction and development.“[A]nydispute that alters the progress of production activities on the OCS threatens to impair the total recovery of the federally-owned minerals from the reservoir or reservoirs underlying the OCS.Congress intended such a dispute to be within the grant of federal jurisdiction contained in § 1349.”Amoco Prod. Co., 844 F.2d at 1211.
5. The Action is Removable Under the Federal Officer Removal Statute
Assuming the truth of the Plaintiffs allegations, a Casual Nexus Exists between their Actions, pursuant to a federal officers directions, and Plaintiff’s claims, they are “persons” within the meaning of the statute, and can assert several colorable federal defenses.SeeLeitev. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2014)The Federal Officer Removal statute allows removal of an action against “any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof . . . for or relating to any act under color of such office.”28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).Durham, 445 F.3d at 1251“A party seeking removal under section 1442 must demonstrate that:(a)it is a ‘person’ within the meaning of the statute;(b)there is a causal nexus between its actions, taken pursuant to a federal officer’s directions, and plaintiff’s claims;and (c) it canassert a ‘colorable federal defense.’”
6. The Action is Removable because this Case Arises from Acts Arising from Multiple Federal Enclaves
Plaintiff’s Claims are based on Alleged Injuries to and/or Conduct on Federal Enclaves pursuant toUS Constitution art. I, § 8, cl. 17The Constitution authorizes Congress to “exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever” over all places purchased with the consent of a state “for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.”U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 17.“Federal courts havefederal question jurisdiction over tort claims that arise on ‘federal enclaves.’”Durham, 445 F.3d at 1250The “key factor” in determining whether a federal court has federal enclave jurisdiction “isthe location of the plaintiff’s injury or where the specific cause of action arose.”Sparling v. Doyle, 2014 WL 2448926, at *3 (W.D. Tex. May 30, 2014)Three requirements exist for land to be a federal enclave:Wood v. Am. Crescent Elevator Corp., No. 11-397, 2011 WL 1870218, at *2 (E.D. La. May 16, 2011)(1) the United States must have acquired the land from a state;(2) the state legislature must have consented to the jurisdiction of the Federal Government;and (3) the United States must have accepted jurisdiction.
7. The Action is Removable Under the Bankruptcy Removal Statute
Authorized under28 USC § 1452(a)and28 USC 1334(b)because Plaintiff’s state-law claims are related to cases underTitle 11 of the United States CodeTheBankruptcy Removal Statuteallows removal of “any claim or cause of action in a civil action other than a proceeding before the United States Tax Court or a civil action by a governmental unit to enforce such governmental unit’s police or regulatory power, to the district court for the district where such civil action is pending, if such district court has jurisdiction of such claim or cause of action undersection 1334of this title.”28 U.S.C. § 1452(a).“[T]he district courts shall haveoriginal but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings, arising underTitle 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11” of the United States Code.28 U.S.C. § 1334(b).Two (+) of the Defendants in this case—Peabody Energy Corporation (“Peabody”) and Arch Coal, Inc. (“Arch”) (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 24)—emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcyin the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (the “Bankruptcy Court”)less than one year ago and are implementing their confirmed bankruptcy plans.Plaintiff alleged thatit will have to “diver[t] . . . tax dollars away from other public services to [address] sea level rise” and that it will incur “costs associated with addressing sea level rise caused by Defendants” totaling “billions of dollars over the next several decades.”Compl. ¶¶ 197.c, 197.e, 236.c, 236.e.
The End.

0

Embed

Share

Upload

Make amazing presentation for free
Team 1 – Defendants Arguments for Removal