Legal Opinion
Cnty. of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided March 16, 2018No. Case No. 17–cv–04929–VC; Case No. 17–cv–04934–VC; Case No. 17–cv–04935–VCPublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO REMAND
VINCE CHHABRIA, United States District Judge *937The plaintiffs' motions to remand are granted.
Because federal common law does not govern the plaintiffs' claims, it also does not preclude them from asserting the state law claims in these lawsuits. Simply put, these cases should not have been removed to federal court on the basis of federal common law that no longer exists.
2. Nor was removal warranted under the doctrine of complete preemption. State law claims are often preempted by federal law, but preemption alone seldom *938justifies removing a case from state court…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & ManufacturingSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeighSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Beneficial National Bank v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Lockyer v. Mirant Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- Watson v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2007
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- City of Oakland v. Bp P.L.C.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2022
- Boulder County Commissioners v. Suncor EnergyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2022
- Mayor of Balt. v. BP P. L.C.District Court, D. Maryland · 2019
- City of New York v. Chevron Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2021
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.