Cablevision of Boston Ltd. Partnership v. Flynn

• Decision Date: 30 March 1989
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 88-0658-Y,88-1526-Y.
• Parties: CABLEVISION OF BOSTON LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Cablevision Systems Boston Corporation and Charles F. Dolan, Plaintiffs, v. Raymond L. FLYNN, Mayor, Defendants. CITY OF BOSTON and Raymond L. Flynn, Mayor, Plaintiffs, v. CABLEVISIONS SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Cablevision of Boston Limited Partnership, Cablevision Systems Boston Corporation and Charles F. Dolan, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

710 F. Supp. 23

CABLEVISION OF BOSTON LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Cablevision Systems Boston Corporation and Charles F. Dolan, Plaintiffs, v. Raymond L. FLYNN, Mayor, Defendants.

CITY OF BOSTON and Raymond L. Flynn, Mayor, Plaintiffs, v. CABLEVISIONS SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Cablevision of Boston Limited Partnership, Cablevision Systems Boston Corporation and Charles F. Dolan, Defendants.

Civ. A. Nos. 88-0658-Y, 88-1526-Y.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

March 30, 1989.

Bruce A. Singal, Ann Ryan-Small, Ferriter, Scobbo, Sikora, Caruso & Rodophele, P.C., Patrick Costello, Asst. Corp. Counsel, City of Boston, Boston, Mass., for City of Boston and Raymond Flynn.

Michael Collora, Dwyer & Collora, Boston, Mass., for Cablevision of Boston et al.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YOUNG, District Judge.

On March 22, 1988, Cablevision of Boston Limited Partnership, together with Cablevision Systems Boston Corporation and Charles F. Dolan, its General Partners (together, "Cablevision"), plaintiffs, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a declaration that the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (the "Cable Act"), 47 U.S.C. sec. 521 et seq., pre-empts the municipal regulation of cable television rates with the result that Cablevision did not violate the terms of its license agreement with the defendant Raymond L. Flynn, Mayor of Boston ("the Mayor"), by raising the rates for its basic service effective January 1, 1987.

On April 29, 1988, the Mayor moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on the grounds that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. In the alternative, the Mayor moved for summary judgment. On June 22, 1988, the Mayor and the City of Boston (together, "Boston") filed suit in the Superior Court for Suffolk County, Massachusetts, seeking injunctive and other relief from the cable television rate increase. All the named plaintiffs in the case pending before this Court were named as defendants in the state court action, as well as an additional defendant, Cablevision Systems Corporation. On June 29, 1988, counsel for Cablevision removed that state court action to the United States District Court, alleging jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1331 and the Cable Act.

Boston has moved for remand of that case to the Massachusetts Superior Court for Suffolk County. Cablevision argues that Boston's claims are pre-empted by the Cable Act and any claims it may have necessarily arise under the Cable Act, and give this Court subject matter jurisdiction. The position of Boston is that none of the state law claims are pre-empted, that any preemption argument functions only as an anticipatory defense to Boston's claims against Cablevision for breach of contract, and that this Court is therefore without jurisdiction to adjudicate either Cablevision's petition for declaratory judgment or Boston's suit filed in the Massachusetts Superior Court.

I. JURISDICTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

A complaint filed in federal court seeking declaratory judgment, as any complaint, must come within the purview of a district court's original subject matter jurisdiction. Similarly, under the removal statute, a defendant may remove a state court action only if the case falls within the original jurisdiction of the federal district court. 28 U.S.C. sec. 1441. Where, as here, there is no diversity of citizenship between the parties, the subject matter jurisdiction of a district court — respecting either a complaint for declaratory judgment or a petition for the removal to federal court of pending state court proceedings — depends on whether the action "arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. sec. 1331.

Although the concept of "federal question" jurisdiction under section 1331 is not susceptible of precise definition, it is settled that the question of whether a claim "arises under" federal law must be determined with reference to the "well-pleaded complaint." Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808, 106 S.Ct. 3229, 92 L.Ed.2d 650 (1986). See Gully v. First Nat'l Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 113, 57 S.Ct. 96, 97, 81 L.Ed. 70 (1936) (Cardozo, J.) (classic formulation of the well-pleaded complaint rule as requiring that the federal question "be disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unaided by the answer or by the petition for removal").

The "well-pleaded complaint" rule, however, is no more susceptible of precise definition. Certainly the vast majority of cases that come within federal question jurisdiction come within Justice Holmes' definition that "`a suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action.'" See Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8-9, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 2845-46, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983) (quoting American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257, 260, 36 S.Ct. 585, 586, 60 L.Ed. 987 (1916). Cablevision, however, does not argue that Boston's claims, as stated in the state court complaint, are created by operation of federal law.¹

The "well-pleaded complaint" rule teaches that where the federal question does not appear on the face of the complaint and is raised only by way of a federal defense, the jurisdictional statute does not authorize removal. Hernandez-Agosto v. Romero-Barcelo, 748 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir.1984).

To be sure, a plaintiff may not disguise an essentially federal claim by "`artful pleading to close off a defendant's right to a federal forum....'" Federated Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 397 n. 2, 101 S.Ct. 2424, 2427 n. 2, 69 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981) (not questioning the district courts' factual finding that the plaintiff's state antitrust claims, though artfully pleaded, were essentially federal law claims) (quoting 14 C. Wright, A Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, sec. 3722, at 564-66 1976). Similarly, one may not use the declaratory judgment procedure, 28 U.S.C. sec. 2201, merely as a device to expand federal jurisdiction. See Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667, 673-74, 70 S.Ct. 876, 879-80, 94 L.Ed. 1194 (1950). That is, a litigant cannot simply go to federal court and there, by means of an action for declaratory relief, seek to have the validity of a federal law defense adjudicated in anticipation of a state law claim. Public Serv. Comm'n of Utah v. Wycoff Co., 344 U.S. 237, 248, 73 S.Ct. 236, 242, 97 L.Ed. 291 (1952). In this instance, the court looks behind the face of the complaint to determine the real nature of the claim, regardless of the plaintiff's characterization.

As the preceding suggests, federal courts have long been hesitant to assert jurisdiction merely because of the presence of a federal issue in a state-created cause of action, even where the federal issue is outcome determinative. See, e.g., Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 29 S.Ct. 42, 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908). A specific instance of this principle was presented in Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 2841, where the Supreme Court ruled subject matter jurisdiction was lacking even though the central issue presented in the case turned on the meaning of a federal statute. To the same effect, in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 65, 107 S.Ct. 1542, 15, 95 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987), the Supreme Court suggested that it is rare that a federal statute has "that extraordinary pre-emptive power ... that converts an ordinary state common law complaint into one stating a federal claim for purposes of the well-pleaded complaint rule." Nonetheless, a federal court should not hesitate to assert jurisdiction over a dispute "if a federal cause of action completely pre-empts the state cause of action" which is at the heart of the case.²Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. at 24, 103 S.Ct. at 2854 (citing Avco, 390 U.S. 557, 88 S.Ct. 1238).

This Court starts with the premise that nothing in the structure of our federal system prevents state courts from enforcing rights created by federal law. Testa v. Katt, 330 U.S. 386, 67 S.Ct. 810, 91 L.Ed. 967 (1947) (holding that a state was required to enforce federal law). Cf. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 334-37, 4 L.Ed. 97 (1816) (Story, J.) (discussing the prophylaxis of the right of appeal to the Supreme Court). The supremacy clause of the Constitution, which authorizes pre-emption by Congress, is concerned with promoting the supremacy of federal law, not federal courts. See Austin v. New England Tel. and Tel. Co., 644 F.Supp. 763, 769 (D.Mass.1986).

II. PRE-EMPTION CONSIDERATIONS

The issue of Congressional intent — here whether Congress intended to supersede traditional common law remedies — is decisive to any pre-emption analysis. See Louisiana Public Serv. Comm'n v. Federal Communications Comm'n, 476 U.S. 355, 369, 106 S.Ct. 1890, 1899, 90 L.Ed.2d 369 (1986). Congress may pre-empt state law by including express language to that effect in a statute. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Dev. Comm'n, 461 U.S. 190, 203, 103 S.Ct. 1713, 1721, 75 L.Ed.2d 752 (1983); Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519, 525, 97 S.Ct. 1305, 1309, 51 L.Ed.2d 604 (1977). Pre-emption may also be implied by courts where Congress has shown its intent to supersede state law altogether, as when it occupies a given field with a scheme of federal regulation "so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it." Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230, 67 S.Ct. 1146, 1152, 91 L.Ed. 1447 (1947). Where Congress has not entirely superseded state regulation in a specific area, state law is still pre-empted "to the extent that it actually conflicts with federal law." Pacific Gas & Electric, 461 U.S. at 204, 103 S.Ct. at 1722; see also Rath Packing, 430 U.S. at 525-26, 97 S.Ct. at 1309-10. Moreover,...