Lake v. Ohana Military Communities, LLC, No. 19-17340 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Defendants, Ohana Military Communities, LLC and Forest City Residential Management, began a major housing construction project on Marine Corps Base Hawaii (MCBH) in 2006. MCBH was widely contaminated with pesticides potentially impacting human health. Defendants developed and implemented a Pesticide Soil Management Plan but allegedly never informed residential tenants of the Plan, the decade-long remediation efforts, or known pesticide contamination. Plaintiffs, military servicemember families, filed suit in Hawaii state court alleging 11 different claims under state law. Defendants removed the case to federal court.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of the Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. Federal jurisdiction did not exist because, under the Hawaii Admission Act, 73 Stat. 4 (1959), Hawaii had concurrent legislative or political jurisdiction over MCBH, so state law had not been assimilated into federal law. The court rejected an argument that, regardless of any concurrent state jurisdiction, federal jurisdiction exists where federally owned or controlled land is involved, and a substantial federal interest exists. There was no federal officer or agency jurisdiction because there was no causal nexus between the Navy and Ohana under 28 U.S.C. 1442, and Ohana was not a federal agency for purposes of federal jurisdiction. Under the Gunn test, no federal issue was “necessarily raised.”
Court Description: Federal Jurisdiction. The panel reversed the district court’s order denying plaintiffs’ motion to remand an action to state court, vacated all subsequent district court decisions for lack of jurisdiction, and remanded with instructions to remand to state court. Military servicemember families sued Ohana Military Communities, LLC, and Forest City Residential Management, Inc., in Hawaii state court, alleging state law claims based on defendants’ failure to provide residential tenants with notice of pesticide contamination and remediation efforts on Marine Corps Base Hawaii. Defendants removed the action to federal court based on federal jurisdiction. The panel held that federal jurisdiction did not exist because, first, under the Hawaii Admission Act, the State of Hawaii had concurrent legislative or political jurisdiction over Marine Corps Base Hawaii, and so state law had not been assimilated into federal law. Second, the panel rejected a rule that, regardless of any concurrent state jurisdiction, federal jurisdiction exists where federally owned or controlled land is involved, and a substantial federal interest exists. Third, the panel held that there was no federal officer or agency jurisdiction because there was no causal nexus between the Navy and Ohana under 28 U.S.C. § 1442, and Ohana was not a federal agency for purposes of federal LAKE V. OHANA MILITARY COMMUNITIES 3 jurisdiction. Finally, under the Gunn test, no federal issue was “necessarily raised.”
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.