745 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2014), 12-2779, Baker v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
|Citation:||745 F.3d 919|
|Opinion Judge:||WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.|
|Party Name:||Joel Baker; Kathy Baker; Margaret L. Barnett; Matthew Wagner; Victoria Wagner; Todd Durbin; Stephanie Durbin; Kendra Sallam; Evelyn Tombleson; Glen Tombleson; Timothy Gust; Kiersten Gust; Diana Anderson; Cheri Williams; Laura Decourcy; Richard Decourcy; Phillip Cooper; Marilyn Cooper, Plaintiffs - Appellants v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.; Hunt|
|Attorney:||For Joel Baker, Kathy Baker, Margaret L. Barnett, Matthew Wagner, Victoria Wagner, Todd Durbin, Stephanie Durbin, Kendra Sallam, Evelyn Tombleson, Glen Tombleson, Timothy Gust, Kiersten Gust, Diana Anderson, Cheri Williams, Laura Decourcy, Richard Decourcy, Phillip Cooper, Marilyn Cooper, Plainti...|
|Judge Panel:||Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. BEAM, Circuit Judge, concurring. BEAM, Circuit Judge, concurring.|
|Case Date:||March 20, 2014|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit|
Submitted September 24, 2013.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City.
Eighteen citizens (the citizens) of Greenwood, Missouri (the City), sued Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., Hunt Martin Materials, LLC, and several trucking companies (collectively, " the quarry defendants" ) in Missouri state court, asserting various state-law tort claims. The quarry defendants removed the case to federal district court, whereupon the district court issued an injunction prohibiting the citizens from pursuing their claims in any forum. The citizens appeal the district court's denial of their motion to remand to state court and its issuance of the injunction. We reverse and remand.
A. Prior Litigation
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (MMM), and Hunt Martin Materials, LLC (HMM), own and operate a quarry outside the City. Second Avenue runs through residential areas of the City and provides access to the quarry. In 1991, the City and MMM entered into a contract that allowed trucking companies to use the Second Avenue route when traveling to and from the quarry. Use of the route continued without incident until 2006, when, in an attempt to reduce truck traffic, the City passed an ordinance that imposed weight restrictions on trucks using Second Avenue. In response, MMM and HMM filed suit against the City in federal district court. The ordinance was later invalidated.
The City subsequently passed a new ordinance (the Ordinance) that prohibited commercial vehicles from using the City's streets unless the street was a designated " Commercial Use Route." In effect, the Ordinance prevented trucks from using Second Avenue to gain access to the quarry. MMM and HMM challenged the Ordinance in federal district court.
In September 2008, the district court issued an injunction that permanently enjoined the City from enforcing the Ordinance (the 2008 Permanent Injunction). The district court determined that the Ordinance " impose[d] a burden on interstate commerce that [wa]s clearly excessive in relation to the purported local benefits[,]" and thus concluded that the Ordinance violated the dormant Commerce Clause. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. City of Greenwood, No. 06-697-CV-W-DW, 2008 WL 4832638, at *7 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 4, 2008). Further, the district court ordered:
[U]nder the Commerce Clause, the City of Greenwood is enjoined from taking any action that has the effect of prohibiting all through truck traffic through the City. Based on the facts of this case, that means that truck traffic must be able to make use of either the existing Second Avenue Route or a route utilizing
Allendale Lake Road to travel to and from Highway 150 through the City....
Following the issuance of the 2008 Permanent Injunction, the City, MMM, and HMM entered into a settlement agreement in which the City designated Second Avenue as the route to be used for quarry traffic.1
B. Current Litigation
The citizens, who reside on Second Avenue, filed suit against the quarry defendants in state court in 2011, asserting state-law tort claims for private nuisance, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence per se. The citizens sought actual, compensatory, and punitive damages. They did not seek declaratory or injunctive relief.
The quarry defendants removed the case to federal district court. In response, the citizens moved to remand the case to state court, asserting that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the case. The district court acknowledged that the citizens' claims were brought under state law and that the parties were not diverse, but denied the citizens' motion to remand, concluding that it had jurisdiction because the citizens' claims " raise[d] important federal questions, including whether [the quarry defendants'] use of Second Avenue remain[ed] protected by the dormant Commerce Clause." D. Ct. Order of Dec. 16, 2011, at 11. Further, the district court concluded that it had ancillary jurisdiction to protect and enforce the 2008 Permanent Injunction. In response to the quarry defendants' motion, the district court later issued an injunction pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), prohibiting the citizens from pursuing their claims in any forum.
II. Motion to Remand
" A defendant may remove a state law claim to federal court only if the action originally could have been filed there." In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig., 591 F.3d 613, 619 (8th Cir. 2010); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441. " [T]he party seeking removal has the burden to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction, [and] all doubts about federal jurisdiction must be resolved in favor of remand." Cent. Iowa Power Coop. v. Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator,...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP