Cook v. Vill. of Hoosick Falls

• Decision Date: 30 October 2018
• Docket Number: 1:18-CV-0636 (LEK/DJS)
• Parties: JESSICA COOK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VILLAGE OF HOOSICK FALLS, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

JESSICA COOK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VILLAGE OF HOOSICK FALLS, et al., Defendants.

1:18-CV-0636 (LEK/DJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

October 30, 2018

DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs initiated this action in April 2018 in New York state court. Dkt. No. 2 ("Complaint"). It is one of many filed in this District by residents of the Village of Hoosick Falls, New York (the "Village") against defendants Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation ("Saint-Gobain") and Honeywell International, Inc. ("Honeywell") alleging that their local manufacturing facility released dangerous amounts of Perfluorooctanoic Acid ("PFOA") into the Village's drinking water, soil, and ambient air. In this case, Plaintiffs allege that the Village is also responsible because it inadequately monitored and maintained its municipal water system and continued to distribute the water despite knowing it was dangerously contaminated. Compl. ¶ 91.

Plaintiffs' claims all arise under New York law, and Plaintiffs and the Village both reside in New York. Therefore, this case would appear to be outside the Court's jurisdiction, which covers state-law cases only when no plaintiff shares citizenship with any defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Nevertheless, Saint-Gobain removed this case to federal court. It asserts that it is "no[t] possib[le], based on the pleadings," to conclude that Plaintiffs timely notified the Village of their claims as required under New York law, Dkt. No. 22 ("Opposition") at 9 (quoting Pampillonia v. RJR Nabisco, 138 F.3d 459, 461 (2d Cir. 1998))—even though the New York Supreme Court so concluded, Dkt. No. 1-2 ("State Court Decision"). Therefore, Saint-Gobain argues, the only proper defendants are Saint-Gobain and Honeywell, who reside outside New York, and the Court has diversity jurisdiction to hear this case.

After removing the case, Saint-Gobain, with Honeywell, filed a motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 12 ("Motion to Dismiss"), and a motion to consolidate this case with the related actions, Dkt. No. 15 ("Motion to Consolidate"). Plaintiffs moved to remand. Dkt. No. 16 ("Remand Motion"). By agreement of the parties, the Court stayed briefing on the Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 20 ("Stay Order") at 2. In addition, Saint-Gobain asked the Court to abstain from deciding the Remand Motion until the New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division decides the Village's state court appeal. Dkt. 21 ("Cross-Motion to Abstain"). For the following reasons, the Cross-Motion to Abstain is denied, the Remand Motion is granted, and the case is remanded to state court. The Motions to Dismiss and to Consolidate are accordingly denied without prejudice, as the Court lacks jurisdiction to dismiss the case or consolidate it with others.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Saint-Gobain has not submitted any evidence challenging the jurisdictional facts alleged in the Complaint. Therefore, for present purposes, the Court takes those allegations as true and draws all inferences they suggest in favor of Plaintiffs. See Fed. Ins. v. Tyco Int'l Ltd., 422 F. Supp. 2d 357, 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ("When considering a motion to remand, the district court accepts as true all relevant allegations contained in the complaint and construes all factual ambiguities in favor of the plaintiff."); see also Amidax Trading Grp. v. S.W.I.F.T. SCRL, 671 F.3d 140, 145 (2d Cir. 2011) ("In reviewing a facial attack to the court's jurisdiction, we draw all facts—which we assume to be true unless contradicted by more specific allegations ordocumentary evidence—from the complaint and from the exhibits attached thereto."). It also considers some documents outside the pleadings that are susceptible to judicial notice. La. Mun. Police Emps' Ret. Sys. v. Wynn, 829 F.3d 1048, 1063 (9th Cir. 2016). However, the jurisdictional facts must be viewed as they are "at the time when [the] defendant[s] file[d] the notice of removal," and later developments cannot confer jurisdiction. Blockbuster, Inc. v. Galeno, 472 F.3d 53, 57 (2d Cir. 2006).

The Village operates and maintains a municipal water system that serves approximately 95% of its 4,500 residents. Compl. ¶ 78. The wells serving it are about 500 yards from Saint-Gobain's (formerly Honeywell's) manufacturing facility at 14 McCaffrey Street in the Village—the primary source of the PFOA contamination. Id. ¶ 88. The allegations concerning the McCaffrey Street facility, the decades of PFOA discharges from it into the Village's soil, aquifer, and drinking water, and the effects on the Village's residents and their properties, are more fully described in related cases filed beginning in 2016. See, e.g., Andrick v. Saint-Gobain, No. 17-CV-1058, 2018 WL 3068056, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. June 21, 2018); Baker v. Saint-Gobain, 232 F. Supp. 3d 233, 239 (N.D.N.Y. 2017); Benoit v. Saint-Gobain, No. 16-CV-1057, 2017 WL 4331032, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2017).

In essence, since at least the mid-2000s, studies have associated PFOA with an increased risk of various adverse health conditions, including high blood pressure, autoimmune disease, pregnancy complications, and kidney and testicular cancer. Compl. ¶ 60. However, the chemical was once widely used in the process of making stain and water-resistant fabrics and other materials, including Teflon. Id. ¶¶ 52, 74. In the years during which the Saint-Gobain and Honeywell operated the factory, their employees washed waste PFOA from the manufacturingprocess down the drains, into the soil surrounding the facility, and into the underground wells and aquifers used for the Village's drinking water. Id. ¶¶ 70, 76.

The Village admitted in state court that "the potential health problems associated with PFOA exposure have been widely disseminated throughout the Hoosick Falls area . . . since 2015." State Ct. Decision at 3. From late 2014 to the middle of 2015, the Village conducted testing and found high levels of PFOA in the municipal water system—concentrations ranging from 150 to 662 parts per trillion ("ppt") (the EPA has advised against using water supplies with concentrations greater than 70 ppt). Compl. ¶¶ 81, 84. In October 2015, the EPA, learning the results, contacted the Village to "recommend[] that people not drink the water from the Hoosick Falls public water supply or use it for cooking." Id. ¶ 89. In Baker, the plaintiffs alleged that despite these test results and the EPA's recommendation, Village officials maintained that "the water was safe to drink," "minimized . . . the potential risk of PFOA" in it, and "downplay[ed]" the EPA's warning, "suggesting that whether or not an individual used municipal water was a matter of personal choice." No. 16-CV-917, Dkt. No. 9 ("Baker Complaint") ¶¶ 99-100.¹ They asserted that the Village's "laissez faire response" prompted the EPA to reiterate its warning. Baker, 232 F. Supp. at 239.

Saint-Gobain later entered an agreement with the Village to provide free bottled water to Hoosick Falls residents and installed a carbon PFOA filter system in the municipal water plant. Compl. ¶ 92. In January and February 2016, the New York Department of EnvironmentalConservation ("DEC") and Governor Andrew Cuomo classified PFOA as a hazardous substance and the McCaffrey Street Facility as a state superfund site, recommending additional investigation and remedial measures to protect public health and drinking water supplies. Id. ¶¶ 95, 98.

Meanwhile, on January 14, 2016, the New York State Department of Health ("DOH") began to offer blood testing to Hoosick Falls residents. Dkt. No. 1-3 ("Defendant's Appellate Brief") at 9. Ultimately, over 2,000 individuals participated in the program, including Plaintiffs. Id. The testing revealed average PFOA levels of approximately 23-28 micrograms per liter (μg/l) of blood, id., which is over ten times the national average of 2.08 μg/l, Baker, 232 F. Supp. 3d at 240.² In mid-2016, Plaintiffs Holbrook, Peckham, and Cook learned that they had levels of 31.1, 85.7, and 22 μg/l, respectively. Def's App. Br. at 9. Plaintiffs allege the contamination of their potable water also reduced their property values and ability to obtain mortgages. Compl. ¶¶ 104-105.

On May 3, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an application to file late notices of their claims ("Notices") against the Village, claiming the Village's negligent maintenance of its water system contributed to the high PFOA levels in their blood, its associated health effects, and the drop in their property values. State Ct. Decision at 2. On September 13, 2017, over the Village's objection, the New York Supreme Court granted the application. Id. at 5. The Village appealed to the Supreme Court's Appellate Division, Third Department. Def's App. Br. at 1. Meanwhile, on September 13, 2017, Plaintiffs served their Notices on the Village. Compl. ¶¶ 26, 29, 32.

On April 3, 2018, after exhausting their administrative remedies, Plaintiffs filed this case in the New York Supreme Court for Rensselaer County. Compl. The present motions followed.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

A defendant may remove cases reasonably seeking over $75,000 and alleging only state-law claims, such as this one, to federal court if: (1) the parties are completely diverse, meaning that none of the plaintiffs are from the same state as any defendant, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and (2) none of the defendants who were "properly joined and served . . . is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought," § 1441(b). Thus, a clever plaintiff, hoping to keep her case in her home state court, may attempt to add an in-state defendant. But she "may not defeat a federal court's diversity jurisdiction and a defendant's right of removal by merely joining as defendants parties with no real connection with the controversy." Pampillonia, 138 F.3d at 460-61.

"In order to show that a defendant was fraudulently joined to defeat removal, it is not sufficient to argue that the complaint fails to state a claim against that defendant." Stan Winston Creatures,...