Baker v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.

• Decision Date: 05 May 2014
• Docket Number: No. 12–2779.,12–2779.
• Citation: 745 F.3d 919
• Parties: 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 Martin Materials, LLC; Material Transport Company; Hanrahan Asphalt Paving Co., Inc.; Vance Brothers, Inc.; Patrick L. Dusselier Foundation Company, Inc.; Superior Bowen Asphalt Company, L.L.C.; Tom Peace Trucking, Co.; Bill Cassidy Trucking, Inc.; Lone Wolf Enterprises, Inc.; Bluestem Trucking, Inc.; George J. Shaw Construction, Co.; Pavlich, Inc.; O'Neil Trucking; Greg Bordner Construction Co., Inc.; Miles Excavating, Inc.; Acker Trucking; Show–Me Trucking & Freight, Inc.; Pavestone Company, LLC; Heller's Trucking; Roadhog Trucking, LLC; Geiger Trucking Company, Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

745 F.3d 919

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 Martin Materials, LLC; Material Transport Company; Hanrahan Asphalt Paving Co., Inc.; Vance Brothers, Inc.; Patrick L. Dusselier Foundation Company, Inc.; Superior Bowen Asphalt Company, L.L.C.; Tom Peace Trucking, Co.; Bill Cassidy Trucking, Inc.; Lone Wolf Enterprises, Inc.; Bluestem Trucking, Inc.; George J. Shaw Construction, Co.; Pavlich, Inc.; O'Neil Trucking; Greg Bordner Construction Co., Inc.; Miles Excavating, Inc.; Acker Trucking; Show–Me Trucking & Freight, Inc.; Pavestone Company, LLC; Heller's Trucking; Roadhog Trucking, LLC; Geiger Trucking Company, Defendants–Appellees.

No. 12–2779.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 24, 2013.

Filed: March 20, 2014.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied May 5, 2014.

Kenneth Blair McClain, argued, Independence, MO (Gregory Leyh, Gladstone, MO., Jonathan M. Soper, Independence, MO, on the brief), for appellant.

H. Wayne Phears, Atlanta, GA, argued, (Roland B. Miller, III, Brian J. Madden, and Vincent F. O'Flaherty, all of Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for appellee Martietta Materials and Hunt Martin Materials.

John Power, Kansas City, MO, argued, (Daniel N. Allmayer, Lloyd W. Raber, Todd C. Barrett, Dana M. Harris, David M. Halphin, Charles A. Getto, Douglas M. Greewald, Ryan Edward Karaim, John G. Schultz, Michael J. Tubbesing, Andrew M. DeMarea, Heber O. Gonzalez, Ryan Manies, Nikki Cannezzaro, Kelvin J. Fisher, Richard Frank Lombardo, and Anne E. Smith, all of Kansas City, MO., Michael C. Kirkham, Brian L. Burge, Neil C. Gosch, Curtis Orville Roggow, Joshua David Scott, James L. Saunders, and Brian Boos, all of Overland Park, KS, Kevin L. Fritz, Michael J. Smith, Christopher P. Leritz and Joseph L. Leritz, all of St. Louis, MO, on the brief), for appellees, Material Transport Company, Pavestone Company LLC, O'Neil Trucking, Bill Cassidy Trucking Inc., Pavlich Inc., Acker Trucking, Vance Brothers Inc., Miles Excavating Inc., Tom Peace Trucking Co., Geiger Trucking Company, Roadhog Trucking, LLC, and Bluestem Trucking, Inc.

David R. Buchanan, Patrick A. Bousquet, Joseph R. Swift, and T. Michael Ward, all of St. Louis, MO, Paul D. Cowing and Andrew S. Mendelson, of Lee's Summit, MO, Lee M. Baty, Theresa A. Otto, and Elizabeth A. Gillespie, of Kansas City, MO, Jeffrey C. Baker, and Jeffrey A. Bullins, of Overland Park, KS, on the brief, for appellees, Greg Bordner Construction, Patrick L. Dusselier Foundation Company, Inc., Superior Bowen Asphalt Company, LLD, Beutler, Inc. d/b/a Greorge J. Shaw Construction, Co., Scot Heler Trucking Company, Inc. and Hanrahan Asphalt Paving Company, Inc.

Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

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.

I.Background

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–W, 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 utilizingAllendale Lake Road to travel to and from Highway 150 through the City....

Id. at *8.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 ofDec. 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 also28 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, Inc.,561 F.3d 904, 912(8th Cir.2009)(internal citations omitted).“We review the district court's exercise of removal jurisdiction and its denial of a motion to remandde novo.”Id. at 911–12.

The quarry defendants argue that removal was proper because the district court had both federal-question jurisdiction and ancillary jurisdiction over the case.We address each of these arguments in turn.

A. Federal–Question Jurisdiction

“Removal based on federal question jurisdiction is governed by the well pleaded complaint rule: jurisdiction is established only if a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.”Pet Quarters, Inc. v. Depository Trust & Clearing Corp.,559 F.3d 772, 779(8th Cir.2009).Accordingly, a plaintiff“may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.”Cent. Iowa Power,561 F.3d at 912(quotingCaterpillar Inc. v. Williams,482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 96 L.Ed.2d 318(1987)).Defendants may not “inject a federal question into an otherwise state-law claim and thereby transform the action into one arising under federal law.”Gore v. Trans World Airlines,210 F.3d 944, 948(8th Cir.2000).Moreover, “[i]t is firmly established that a federal defense, including a preemption defense, does not provide a basis for removal, ‘even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue in the case.’ ”Cent. Iowa Power,561 F.3d at 912(quotingCaterpillar,482 U.S. at 393, 107 S.Ct. 2425).

The United States Supreme Court has recognized, however, that “in certain cases federal-question jurisdiction will lie over state-law claims that implicate significant federal issues.”Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg.,545 U.S. 308, 312, 125 S.Ct. 2363, 162 L.Ed.2d 257(2005).“There is no ‘single, precise, all-embracing test for jurisdiction over federal issues embedded in state-law claims between nondiverse parties.’ ”Cent. Iowa Power,561 F.3d at 912(quotingGrable & Sons,545 U.S. at 314, 125 S.Ct. 2363).“Instead, the question is, does a state-law claim necessarily raise a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without...