FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
September 4, 2009
PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
BOB COFFEY; LORETTA CORN;
LARRY JONES; MARY ELLEN
JONES; JOHN DOE, and all those
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v. No. 09-6106
FREEPORT MCMORAN COPPER &
GOLD; BLACKWELL ZINC
COMPANY, INC.; PHELPS DODGE
CORPORATION; CYPRUS AMAX
MINERALS COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
AMAX, INC., f/k/a American Metal
Company; BLACKWELL
INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY;
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY,
f/k/a Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Railway Company,
Defendants.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
(D.C. No. 5:08-CV-00640-HE)
Marie R. Yeates, Vinson & Elkins, LLP, Houston, Texas (Morgan L. Copeland,
Jr.; Lewis C. Sutherland, Vinson & Elkins, LLP, Houston, Texas; Sandra G.
Rodriguez, Vinson & Elkins, LLP, Austin, Texas; Reid E. Robison, McAfee &
Taft, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Kevin E. O’Malley, Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A.,
Phoenix, Arizona, with her on the briefs), for Defendants-Appellants.
Nelson J. Roach, (Keith L. Langston with him on the brief), of Nix, Patterson &
Roach, LLP, Dangerfield, Texas, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Before TACHA, ANDERSON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs-Appellees Bob Coffey, Loretta Corn, Larry Jones, and Mary Ellen
Jones filed a class action in state court in Oklahoma on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated persons asserting state law claims based on the
defendants’ alleged contamination of their property through operation of the
Blackwell Zinc Smelter in Blackwell, Oklahoma. Freeport McMoRan Copper
& Gold, Phelps Dodge Corporation, Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, and
Blackwell Zinc Company, Inc. (collectively the “Freeport Defendants” 1) removed
the case to federal court, asserting federal jurisdiction based on the Class Action
1
Plaintiffs also sued the Blackwell Industrial Authority (“BIA”) and the
BNSF Railway Company. Those defendants consented to the notice of removal
filed by the Freeport Defendants, but they are not parties to this appeal.
-2-
Fairness Act (“CAFA”) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). 2
Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, arguing that there was no basis for
federal jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion, concluding that
plaintiffs had demonstrated that their case fell within the “local controversy
exception” to CAFA, and did not raise a federal question under CERCLA. The
Freeport Defendants appeal from that decision. 3 We have jurisdiction over this
appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1).
We affirm the district court’s decision granting the motion to remand
because we agree that plaintiffs’ case falls within the “local controversy
exception” to CAFA. We decline to exercise our appellate jurisdiction to
consider the issue of whether plaintiffs’ case raises a federal question
under CERCLA.
I. Background
Defendant Blackwell Zinc Company, Inc. (“BZC”) owned and operated a
smelter used to refine zinc and cadmium-ore concentrates in Blackwell,
2
The Freeport Defendants also argued that removal was authorized under
28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The district court disagreed, and that portion of the
district court’s decision is not being challenged on appeal.
3
The Freeport Defendants were granted permission to appeal from the
remand order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1), which provides an exception to
the general rule that “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it
was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise,” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).
-3-
Oklahoma, from 1922 until 1974. In 1974, BZC dismantled the facility and
donated the land to the Blackwell Industrial Authority (“BIA”). The BIA
developed the property as an industrial park.
In 1992, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) indicated that the
City of Blackwell might be designated a Superfund site and placed on the
National Priorities List if investigation and remediation efforts did not begin.
That year, BZC, BIA, and the City of Blackwell entered into a Consent
Agreement and Final Order with the Oklahoma State Department of Health to
remediate the environmental contamination at the old Blackwell Zinc smelter site.
In 1994, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) and the
EPA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to ensure a prompt
CERCLA-quality cleanup of the site under the direction of ODEQ.
In 1996, soil remediation efforts began. In 2001, ODEQ issued a Final
Remedial Action Completion Report, which documented that the soil remediation
remedy had been completed. In 2007, defendant Phelps Dodge, on behalf of
BZC, initiated a supplemental voluntary soil cleanup effort for those homeowners
who may not have participated in the earlier soil cleanup. Phelps Dodge also
indicated that it was going to construct and operate a facility to treat groundwater
affected by the former smelter’s operations.
-4-
In 2008, plaintiffs filed this putative class action in state court in
Oklahoma, asserting nuisance, trespass, strict liability, and unjust enrichment
claims. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief for additional environmental
remediation and medical monitoring as well as money damages for diminution in
property value. Plaintiffs included in their putative class definition all Oklahoma
citizens currently domiciled in the State of Oklahoma who own private real
property in Blackwell, or within a five-mile radius of the smelter site, and all
Oklahoma citizens who reside or at any time resided on real property located in
Blackwell or within a five-mile radius of the smelter site.
II. CAFA
CAFA was enacted to respond to perceived abusive practices by plaintiffs
and their attorneys in litigating major class actions with interstate features in state
courts. CAFA allows federal jurisdiction over class actions involving at least
100 members and over $5 million in controversy when minimal diversity is met
(between at least one defendant and one plaintiff-class member). It is undisputed
that those standards are met here.
Congress did create an exception to CAFA, however, for those cases
consisting of primarily local, intrastate matters, which it characterized as the
“Local Controversy Exception,” S. Rep. No. 109-14, at 39 (2005). A district
court must decline to exercise jurisdiction if the plaintiffs can satisfy the
requirements for this exception, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A). As the Senate
-5-
Report explains, “[t]his provision is intended to respond to concerns that
class actions with a truly local focus should not be moved to federal court
under this legislation because state courts have a strong interest in adjudicating
such disputes.” Id.
This case presents a classic example of what Congress intended to cover
when it created this exception. It is a “truly local controversy— a controversy
that uniquely affects a particular locality to the exclusion of all others.” Id.
The plaintiffs are all Oklahoma citizens who were affected by a purely local
incident—the contamination from the former Blackwell Zinc smelter. They are
suing the former owner of the smelter, BZC, and the legal entities that have
owned BZC since the closing of the smelter and have acted on its behalf in an
attempt to remediate the environmental impacts from the smelter. 4
There are three main requirements for plaintiffs to meet in order to satisfy
the “local controversy exception.” The Freeport Defendants did not contest that
plaintiffs met two of the three requirements—all of the members of the plaintiff
class are Oklahoma citizens, and the principal injuries occurred in Oklahoma,
see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(I), (III). The provision in dispute relates to the
4
As of 1993, BZC was owned by AMAX, Inc., who then merged with
Cyprus Minerals Company to form Cyprus Amax Minerals Company. In 1999,
defendant Phelps Dodge Corporation bought defendant Cyprus Amax Minerals
Company. Phelps Dodge is now known as Freeport-McMoRan Corporation and is
a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.
-6-
requirement that there be at least “one real local defendant,” S. Rep. No. 109-14,
at 40. In order to satisfy this “local defendant” requirement, plaintiffs must show
that:
(II) at least 1 defendant is a defendant--
(aa) from whom significant relief is sought by members of the
plaintiff class;
(bb) whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims
asserted by the proposed plaintiff class; and
(cc) who is a citizen of the State in which the action was originally
filed[.]
28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A)(i).
Plaintiffs argued that BZC satisfied this “local defendant” requirement, and
the district court agreed. The Freeport Defendants do not dispute that BZC’s
conduct formed a significant basis for the claims asserted by the proposed
plaintiff class, but they argue that plaintiffs failed to show that BZC is a
defendant from whom significant relief is sought or that BZC is a citizen of
Oklahoma.
Significant Relief
In their motion for remand, plaintiffs argued that BZC was a defendant
“from whom significant relief is sought by members of the plaintiff class”
because all class members had claims against BZC—as opposed to a mere subset
of class members; all class members were seeking to hold BZC jointly and
-7-
severally liable for all of plaintiffs’ damages; and, given the fact that BZC was
the operator of the smelter from 1922-1974, it was reasonably likely that BZC
would be held at least equally responsible for plaintiffs’ damages, if not more so.
In response, the Freeport Defendants argued that the language “from whom
significant relief is sought” requires consideration of a defendant’s ability to pay
a judgment, relying on Robinson v. Cheetah Transportation, No. 06-0005,
2006 WL 468820 (W.D. La. Feb. 27, 2006) (unpublished magistrate judge’s
decision). In Robinson, the court held that
whether a putative class seeks significant relief from an in-state
defendant includes not only an assessment of how many members of
the class were harmed by the defendant’s actions, but also a
comparison of the relief sought between all defendants and each
defendant’s ability to pay a potential judgment.
Id. at *3 (emphasis added). The Freeport Defendants asserted that BZC has no
assets to satisfy any potential judgment and that therefore BZC could not be
considered a defendant from whom significant relief is sought. Plaintiffs replied
that the plain language of the statute does not require an assessment of a
defendant’s ability to pay a judgment, but, even if it did, BZC would be able to
satisfy a judgment through its insurance coverage.
The district court observed that “[c]ourts generally have required that the
local defendant’s conduct be significant when compared to the alleged conduct of
the other defendants and that ‘the relief sought against that defendant is a
significant portion of the entire relief sought by the class.’” Aplt. App. at 1514
-8-
(quoting Evans v. Walter Indus., Inc., 449 F.3d 1159, 1167 (11th Cir. 2006)).
The district court then distinguished the facts of the Robinson case, and
considered defendants’ argument that the phrase “from whom significant relief is
sought” should be construed as “from whom significant relief may actually be
obtained.” Aplt. App. at 1514-17. The district court ultimately rejected
defendants’ position, concluding that
plaintiff[s’] view of the “significant defendant” element is most
consistent with the statutory language actually employed by
Congress. The CAFA exception refers to a defendant from whom
significant relief is “sought,” rather than a defendant from whom the
relief “may be obtained” or “can be collected” or words of similar
import.
Id. at 1518.
The district court determined that the “significant relief element is satisfied
here, where the petition claims that every potential plaintiff is entitled to recover
from [] BZC and the proposed class seeks to collect damages from all defendants
jointly and severally.” Id. at 1517. Given its conclusion “that BZC’s status as a
significant defendant does not turn on its ability to satisfy any judgment the class
may obtain against it,” the district court declined to consider BZC’s financial
status as part of the motion for remand because “that inquiry, alone, would be a
mini trial, involving consideration of multiple insurance coverage litigation
settlement agreements, the solvency of different carriers, pollution and other
policy exclusions, etc.” Id. at 1519 and n.22.
-9-
On appeal, the Freeport Defendants assert that the district court erred in its
interpretation of the “significant relief” requirement. They ask this court to
follow the Robinson court’s construction of the “significant relief” provision,
which would require a district court to assess a defendant’s ability to pay a
potential judgment when considering this subpart of the “local defendant”
requirement, which is itself a subsection of the “local controversy exception.”
In light of the plain language of the statute, we find the Freeport Defendants’
argument unpersuasive.
We review a district court’s statutory interpretation de novo, and it is
our primary task in interpreting statutes to determine congressional
intent, using traditional tools of statutory construction. In
ascertaining such congressional intent, we begin by examining the
statute’s plain language, and if the statutory language is clear, our
analysis ordinarily ends.
Russell v. United States, 551 F.3d 1174, 1178 (10th Cir. 2008) (quotations,
citations, and alterations omitted), petition for cert. filed, 77 U.S.L.W. 3657
(U.S. May 18, 2009) (No. 08-1437).
The disputed portion of the “local defendant” provision requires that the
defendant be one “from whom significant relief is sought by members of the
plaintiff class,” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(II)(aa). We agree with the district
court’s plain language analysis. The statutory language is unambiguous, and
a “defendant from whom significant relief is sought” does not mean a “defendant
from whom significant relief may be obtained.” There is nothing in the language
-10-
of the statute that indicates Congress intended district courts to wade into the
factual swamp of assessing the financial viability of a defendant as part of this
preliminary consideration, which is one of six issues for a court to consider when
deciding whether the “local controversy exception” is met.
Accordingly, because we agree with the district court’s interpretation of the
statute, and because there is no dispute over the court’s application of the
statutory language to the facts of this case, we affirm the district court’s
conclusion that plaintiffs satisfied the “significant relief” requirement in
§ 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(II)(aa).
Citizenship of BZC
The last subpart under the “local defendant” provision requires that the
defendant be a citizen of the state in which the action was originally filed, which
in this case is Oklahoma. In order to establish Oklahoma citizenship, BZC—a
New York corporation—must have its principal place of business in Oklahoma.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (“a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any
State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal
place of business”).
In the district court, plaintiffs asserted that BZC was an active corporation
with its principal place of business in Oklahoma because it owns real property in
Oklahoma and pays taxes on that property; filed an application for a permit to
operate a groundwater treatment plant in Oklahoma; has been conducting
-11-
voluntary environmental remediation for many years in Oklahoma; and initiated a
community outreach program—which includes a community outreach office,
public meetings, newsletters, and a website—to educate the citizens of Blackwell
about BZC’s environmental remediation efforts. Moreover, plaintiffs asserted
that BZC had been licensed to do business in Oklahoma since 1922, that its
license was still active, and that it was conducting business only in Oklahoma.
In response, the Freeport Defendants argued that BZC was not a citizen of
Oklahoma because it had not conducted sufficient business there since it was
acquired by Cyprus Amax in 1999. BZC’s corporate secretary attested that, since
that time, the company has conducted no business, other than following the
formalities to keep the corporation in existence. BZC also submitted evidence
that it has no significant assets and is not engaged in any revenue-generating
operations. BZC asserted that its environmental remediation activities were in
response to legal claims arising from its prior operations and that it was an
inactive corporation with no principal place of business. BZC argued that it was
solely a citizen of New York, its state of incorporation.
The district court stated that it was “not persuaded that the various
environmental response activities that BZC has conducted or overseen beginning
in the 1990’s do not constitute ‘transacting business’ for jurisdictional purposes.”
Aplt. App. at 1512 (alteration, quotation, and citation omitted). The court noted
-12-
plaintiffs’ argument that “the only purpose for the continued existence of BZC
is to clean up pollution in Blackwell left behind by the smelter.” Id. (alteration
and quotation omitted). The court concluded that BZC’s clean up activity was
a “substantial activity in which it is currently engaged” and that this “activity
suffices to establish Oklahoma as BZC’s principal place of business.” Id.
(citing Gadlin v. Sybron Int’l Corp., 222 F.3d 797, 799 (10th Cir. 2000)).
A district court’s determination about a corporation’s principal place of
business “is a question of fact that we review for clear error.” Gadlin, 222 F.3d
at 799. The Freeport Defendants argue, however, that this court should conduct
a de novo review of the district court’s determination because the “the underlying
facts are not in dispute,” instead “[t]he issue is the legal significance of those facts
when viewed through the prism of the appropriate test for citizenship, which is a
question of law . . . . ” Aplt. Reply Br. at 11 n.3. But the Freeport Defendants do
not present any authority to support their position. The clear error standard of
review has been used for the principal-place-of-business determination since this
court issued its decision in Amoco Rocmount Co. v. Anschutz Corp., 7 F.3d 909,
914 (10th Cir. 1993).
In Gadlin, this court held: “When determining a corporation’s principal
place of business, a court should look to the total activity of the company or the
totality of the circumstances . . . . ” Gadlin, 222 F.3d at 799 (quotation omitted).
-13-
The district court’s analysis is consistent with this precedent. The Freeport
Defendants have failed to show that the district court’s decision on BZC’s
citizenship was clearly erroneous.
III. CERCLA
In the district court, the Freeport Defendants argued that CERCLA provided
another basis for federal court jurisdiction. The district court disagreed,
concluding that plaintiffs’ action did not present a federal question under
CERCLA. On appeal, plaintiffs first argue that this court does not have
jurisdiction to consider the portion of the district court’s remand order discussing
the CERCLA issue. As noted earlier, CAFA allows for an exception to the general
rule that an order remanding a case to state court is not reviewable on appeal or
otherwise. It provides:
Section 1447 shall apply to any removal of a case under this section,
except that notwithstanding section 1447(d), a court of appeals may
accept an appeal from an order of a district court granting or denying
a motion to remand a class action to the State court from which it was
removed if application is made to the court of appeals not less than 7
days after entry of the order.
28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1). Plaintiffs assert that, based on CAFA’s limited exception
for reviewing remand orders, this court only has jurisdiction to consider the
district court’s CAFA determination and may not review the district court’s order
with respect to the CERCLA determination.
-14-
In Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446, 451-52 (7th Cir.
2005), the Seventh Circuit concluded that it was “free to consider any potential
error in the district court’s decision, not just a mistake in application of the Class
Action Fairness Act. When a statute authorizes interlocutory appellate review,
it is the district court’s entire decision that comes before the court for review.”
(citing Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199, 205 (1996)). In Yamaha,
the Supreme Court was considering the scope of review of an order in an
interlocutory appeal. The Court concluded that, based on the text of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(b), “appellate jurisdiction applies to the order certified to the court of
appeals, and is not tied to the particular question formulated by the district court.”
Id. at 205. Accordingly, “the appellate court may address any issue fairly included
within the certified order because it is the order that is appealable, and not the
controlling question identified by the district court.” Id. (quotation omitted).
We agree with the Brill court that Yamaha’s analysis applies equally to the
jurisdictional provision in this case because § 1453(c)(1) speaks in terms of the
court of appeals accepting an appeal “from an order of a district court granting or
denying a motion to remand a class action.” (emphasis added). There is no
language limiting the court’s consideration solely to the CAFA issues in the
remand order.
Although this court does have jurisdiction to consider the CERCLA issue,
its decision to exercise that jurisdiction is discretionary. See, e.g., Yamaha,
-15-
516 U.S. at 205 (“the appellate court may address any issue fairly included within
the certified order” (emphasis added)); Brill, 427 F.3d at 451 (“we are free to
consider any potential error in the district court’s decision” (emphasis added)).
Accordingly, we may decline to exercise our appellate discretion to consider the
CERCLA issue. Cf. Teamsters Local 445 Freight Div. Pension Fund v. Dynex
Capital Inc., 531 F.3d 190, 197 (2d Cir. 2008) (acknowledging discretion to
consider questions outside of the scope of the issue district court certified for
interlocutory appeal but declining to exercise that discretion); Moore v. Liberty
Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 267 F.3d 1209, 1219-20 (11th Cir. 2001) (same).
If the district court had granted the motion to remand based solely on the
CERCLA issue, then the remand order would not be reviewable on appeal pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). As the legislative history explains: “[t]he purpose of
[§ 1453(c)(1)] is to develop a body of appellate law interpreting [CAFA] without
unduly delaying the litigation of class actions. As a general matter, appellate
review of orders remanding cases to state court is not permitted, as specified by
28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).” S. Rep. No. 109-14, at 49. Although this court has
discretion to exercise its appellate jurisdiction to review the CERCLA issue,
it does not fit with the reasons behind § 1453(c)(1) to do so, and we conclude that
this is an appropriate case in which to decline to exercise that discretion.
-16-
IV. Conclusion
We AFFIRM the district court’s order remanding this case to state court
because plaintiffs’ case falls within CAFA’s “local controversy exception.”
-17-