COUNTY OF SAN MATEO V. CHEVRON CORP., No. 18-15499 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiffs alleged that the energy companies’ extraction of fossil fuels and other activities were a substantial factor in causing global warming and a rise in the sea level, bringing causes of action for public and private nuisance, strict liability, strict liability, negligence, negligent failure to warn, and trespass.
The court held that the district court lacked federal question jurisdiction under Sec. 1331 because, at the time of removal, the complaints asserted only state-law tort claims against the energy companies. The court held that Plaintiffs’ global-warming claims did not fall within the Grable exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule. In addition, Plaintiffs’ state law claims did not fall under the “artful-pleading” doctrine, another exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule, because they were not completely preempted by the Clean Air Act.
Further, the court found Plaintiffs’ claims were not removable under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The court also held that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction under the federal-officer removal statute, Sec. 1442(a)(1), because the energy companies were not “acting under” a federal officer’s directions. The court then rejected the energy companies’ argument that the district court had removal jurisdiction over the complaints under Sec. 1452(a) because they were related to bankruptcy cases involving Peabody Energy Corp., Arch Coal, and Texaco, Inc. Finally, the court held that the district court did not have admiralty jurisdiction because maritime claims brought in state court are not removable to federal court absent an independent jurisdictional basis.
Court Description: Removal Jurisdiction. On remand from the Supreme Court, the panel affirmed the district court’s order remanding global-warming related complaints to state court after they were removed by the energy company defendants. The complaints alleged that the energy companies’ extraction of fossil fuels and other activities were a substantial factor in causing global warming and sea level rise. The County of San Mateo and other plaintiffs asserted causes of action for public and private nuisance, strict liability for failure to warn, strict liability for design defect, negligence, negligent failure to warn, and trespass. In a prior opinion, the panel affirmed the district court’s determination that no subject matter jurisdiction existed under the federal-officer removal statute, and the panel dismissed the rest of the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted the energy companies’ petition for certiorari and remanded for further consideration in light of BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 141 S. Ct. 1532 (2021), which interpreted 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) as permitting appellate review of additional grounds for removal. On remand, the panel concluded that Baltimore effectively abrogated the reasoning and holding of Patel v. 8 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO V. CHEVRON Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2006), which held that the court of appeals lacked authority to review a remand order considering bases for subject matter jurisdiction other than federal officer jurisdiction. Accordingly, the panel considered all bases for removal raised by the defendants, rather than addressing only federal officer removal. The panel held that the district court lacked federal- question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because, at the time of removal, the complaints asserted only state-law tort claims against the energy companies. The panel held that the plaintiffs’ global-warming claims did not fall within the Grable exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule, under which federal jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if a federal issue is necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial, and capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress. In addition, plaintiffs’ state law claims did not fall under the “artful-pleading” doctrine, another exception to the well- pleaded complaint rule, because they were not completely preempted by the Clean Air Act. The panel rejected the energy companies’ argument that the complaints arose under federal law for purposes of § 1331 because the tort claims at issue arose on a federal enclave. The panel held that plaintiffs’ claims were not removable under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which gives federal courts jurisdiction over actions “arising out of, or in connection with (A) any operation conducted on the outer Continental Shelf which involves exploration, development, or production of the minerals, of the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf, or which involves rights to such minerals.” Taking a different approach from other circuits, which interpreted the statute as requiring a “but-for” COUNTY OF SAN MATEO V. CHEVRON 9 connection between operations on the Outer Continental Shelf and a plaintiff’s alleged injuries, the panel read the phrase “aris[e] out of, or in connection with” as granting federal courts jurisdiction over tort claims only when those claims arise from actions or injuries occurring on the Outer Continental Shelf. The panel held that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction under the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), because the energy companies were not “acting under” a federal officer’s directions based on agreements with the government, including fuel supply agreements with the Navy Exchange Service Command, a unit agreement for petroleum reserves with the U.S. Navy, and lease agreements for the right to explore and produce oil and gas resources in the submerged lands of the Outer Continental Shelf. The panel rejected the energy companies’ argument that the district court had removal jurisdiction over the complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a) because they were related to bankruptcy cases involving Peabody Energy Corp., Arch Coal, and Texaco, Inc. Finally, the panel held that the district court did not have admiralty jurisdiction because maritime claims brought in state court are not removable to federal court absent an independent jurisdictional basis, such as diversity jurisdiction. 10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO V. CHEVRON
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on May 26, 2020.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.