FEDERAL COURT

Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana

Issues

Where a federal contractor attempts to remove a case to federal court under the federal-officer removal statute, what is the correct standard for determining whether removal is proper where the activity giving rise to the lawsuit is not expressly the subject of the government contract on which removal is based?

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide how the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), which allows federal officers and persons “acting under an officer” to remove lawsuits from state to federal courts, applies to federal contractors after a 2011 amendment. In this case, it specifically asks whether three gas and oil’s companies’ production of crude oil sufficiently relates to their contracts to furnish refined aviation gasoline for the federal government during World War II. Chevron, one of the companies involved in this suit, argues that the federal-officer removal statute applies broadly to defendants requesting removal and that wartime oil refining was inherently related to its production of crude oil at the time. Plaquemines Parish, one of multiple jurisdictions that sued the companies for environmental damage, counters that, because Chevron’s refining contracts with the federal government did not address crude production, that production does not sufficiently “relate to” the refining, as required by the 2011 amendment. This case raises significant issues regarding the scope of federal contractors’ ability to litigate in federal forums, the willingness of companies to contract with the federal government, and the effectiveness of congressional amendments over established federal caselaw.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether a causal-nexus or contractual-direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute, which provides federal jurisdiction over civil actions against “any person acting under [an] officer” of the United States “for or relating to any act under color of such office”; and (2) whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract.

Under the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), a defendant may remove a state-court suit to federal court if, among other things, the defendant was “acting under” a federal officer and if the suit is “for or relating to any act under color of such office.” Plaquemines Parish v.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger

Issues

Does amending a complaint to omit a federal question after removal to federal court defeat federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331? Does a post-removal amendment restrict a federal district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether the post-removal amendment of a complaint can defeat federal-question subject matter jurisdiction and preclude a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. On one hand, Royal Canin and Purina argue both that federal-question jurisdiction cannot be extinguished by amending a complaint and also that a district court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction even after the resolution of all federal claims. On the other hand, Anna Wullschleger and Gerald Brewer contend that the amended complaint determines federal-question jurisdiction, and a federal district court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction when no federal claim remains in the lawsuit. The outcome of this case has heavy implications for forum manipulation and federalism.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether a post-removal amendment of a complaint to omit federal questions defeats federal-question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and (2) whether such a post-removal amendment of a complaint precludes a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Anastasia Wullschleger and Geraldine Brewer purchased prescription pet food from Royal Canin and Purina under the impression that the companies formulated the food to treat their pets’ health and disease problems. Brief for Respondents in Opposition, Anastasia Wullschleger at 4.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Maggie Gardner for her guidance and insights into this case.

Additional Resources

  • Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, Dog Food Suit Location Dispute to Get US Supreme Court Review, Bloomberg (April 29, 2024).
  • Richard S. Davis, Master of Its Choice of Forum?: Supreme Court to Decide if a Plaintiff May Compel Remand of a Removed Case by Voluntarily Dismissing Its Federal Claims, Foley & Lardner, LLP (May 22, 2024).

 

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to FEDERAL COURT