Another Removal – Another Remand
Another Removal – Another Remand
By: Olga Fofanova
Edited by: Brooke E. Michiels
Borne v. Chevron U.S.A. Holdings, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 68329, 2015 WL 3417520 (E.D. La., May 27, 2015). In November 2014, individual landowners, who possessed joint interest in tracks of land located in Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes, filed the lawsuit in the 24th Judicial District Court against eleven separate defendants, all of which are oil and gas exploration and production companies. Plaintiffs sought damages and injunctive relief in a form of abatement and restoration of the coastal land that was lost allegedly as a result of defendants’ operations in violation of the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978 (“SLCRMA” herein), and other state laws. In February, 2015 defendants removed the case to federal court, alleging three bases for federal jurisdiction: (1) federal question, (2) the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA” herein), and (3) admiralty. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to remand, arguing that none were a valid basis for federal jurisdiction. The Court first addressed defendants’ argument of whether plaintiffs’ petition for damages raised a federal question. Defendants maintained that in order for plaintiffs to prevail on their claims, they are likely to rely on SCRMA. However, prior to SCRMA, which was enacted in 1978, no state law existed that provided a duty or standard of care for defendants’ activities. As such, defendants contended, plaintiffs would be forced to rely on federal laws to establish their claim for pre-1978 violations. The Court disagreed and held that no federal question was raised. The Court in its reasoning emphasized that plaintiffs in their petition for damages never mentioned federal law or regulations. Instead, plaintiffs explicitly cited specific state law provisions which govern defendants’ pre-1978 activities. In addressing defendants’ argument that federal jurisdiction exists under the OCSLA, the Court noted that this issue had been previously addressed by the Court in Parish of Plaquemines v. Total Petrochemical & Refining USA, Inc., where the Court found no basis for federal jurisdiction under the OCSLA, as none of the defendants’ injury causing activities had been conducted on the Outer Continental Shelf. Here, because defendants raised essentially no new argument to effectively distinguish their case from the holding in Total, the Court found that no federal jurisdiction existed under OCSLA. Finally, the Court looked at whether federal admiralty jurisdiction existed and found that it did not. First, it had been repeatedly held by this Court that the 2011 amendment had not altered the longstanding rule that general maritime law claims require some other non-admiralty source of jurisdiction to be removable. Second, defendants made no attempt to distinguish their arguments from those already raised in previous cases. As such, the Court agreed with previous holdings and found no federal jurisdiction.
