Avitts v. Amoco Production Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Not provided (1995)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A vague, passing reference to unspecified 'Federal law' in a plaintiff's complaint, which otherwise only pleads state-law causes of action, is insufficient to establish federal question subject matter jurisdiction for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Facts:

W.H. Avitts and other landowners owned property where Amoco Production Co. and other companies conducted oil and gas operations.
The landowners alleged that these operations caused physical injuries to their property.
The landowners sought monetary damages for the alleged property injuries.
In their initial state court complaint, the landowners included a sentence stating, 'It is expected that the evidence will reflect that the damages caused by the Defendants are in violation of not only State law but also Federal law.'

Procedural Posture:

W.H. Avitts and other landowners (Plaintiffs) filed suit against Amoco Production Co. (Defendants) in a Texas state district court.
Citing the complaint's reference to 'Federal law,' Amoco removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.
The landowners subsequently filed an amended complaint that omitted all reference to federal law and never asserted a federal cause of action in any of their seven amended complaints.
In the district court, the judge entered a preliminary injunction requiring Amoco to complete an environmental study.
The district court also ordered Amoco to pay approximately $650,000 in the landowners' interim costs and attorney's fees.
Amoco (Appellant) appealed these interim orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a single, nebulous reference to a defendant's violation of unspecified 'Federal law' in a state court complaint, which does not plead a specific federal cause of action, create federal question subject matter jurisdiction allowing for removal to federal court?

Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

No. A nebulous reference to 'federal law' in a complaint that does not plead a specific federal cause of action is insufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction. Removal jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint at the time of removal, and a plaintiff is the master of their complaint. Here, no federal cause of action was ever asserted; the complaint solely contained state-law claims for nuisance, trespass, and negligence, among others. Arguments for jurisdiction based on supplemental jurisdiction or later references to federal statutes like CERCLA in a pretrial order fail because there was never an initial claim over which the court had original jurisdiction.

Analysis:

This case strongly reaffirms the 'well-pleaded complaint' rule, which dictates that federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint. It clarifies that a defendant cannot manufacture federal jurisdiction by seizing upon an ambiguous or passing reference to federal law. The decision underscores the principle that plaintiffs can avoid federal court by pleading exclusively state-law claims, even if federal remedies might also be available. This serves as a procedural guardrail, preventing cases that are fundamentally state-law disputes from being improperly removed to and adjudicated in federal court.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Avitts v. Amoco Production Co. (1995)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature