Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01799/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01799-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL WORLD

WATCH, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C05-1799 TEH 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR

CERTIFICATION FOR

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)

In this suit, Plaintiff Environmental World Watch claims that various commercial

airlines, including Defendant Air New Zealand (“Air NZ”), violated California Health and

Safety Code Section 25249.6, commonly known as Proposition 65. Proposition 65 requires

clear and reasonable warnings before knowingly and intentionally exposing a person to certain

listed chemicals through a medium other than drinking water. Plaintiff admits that it suffered

no injury and instead brings this case on behalf of the general public. See Cal. Code Regs. tit.

11, § 3000 (allowing Proposition 65 suits by private parties “in the public interest”).

Plaintiff filed suit in San Francisco Superior Court on March 24, 2005. Air NZ

subsequently removed the action to this Court, claiming the right to remove under the Foreign

Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1441(d). Plaintiff moved to remand

the case based on Plaintiff’s lack of standing. On August 3, 2005, this Court issued an order

agreeing with Plaintiff’s position and remanding the case to San Francisco Superior Court. The

Clerk of this Court submitted certified copies of the remand order and other docket entries to

the state court on August 4, 2005. On August 16, 2005, the Court received an acknowledgment

Case 3:05-cv-01799-TEH Document 77 Filed 08/24/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

that the San Francisco Superior Court had received the certified copies. Air NZ now seeks

reconsideration of the Court’s remand order or, alternatively, certification of the remand order

for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

However, in its moving papers, Air NZ continues to fail to address the issue presented

by Plaintiff’s motion – namely, Plaintiff’s lack of standing to sue in federal court. As the

Court explained in its remand order, “compliance with the [FSIA] does not necessarily satisfy

all aspects required for a federal court to have jurisdiction.” Aug. 3, 2005 Order Granting Pl.’s

Mot. for Remand at 4. Instead, Article III of the Constitution only grants this Court

jurisdiction to hear matters arising out of a case or controversy, which requires a plaintiff to

have standing to sue. Id. at 5. Standing, in turn, requires a plaintiff to have suffered an “injury

in fact.” Id. Although Proposition 65 created a right for private parties to sue in California

state court without having suffered any injury, a state statute cannot enlarge federal jurisdiction

to include such suits. Id. Thus, because Plaintiff in this case has suffered no injury in fact, it

lacks standing to sue in federal court. As a result, this Court had no alternative but to remand

the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Contrary to Air NZ’s contentions, this Court did not remand the case because it found

the FSIA to be unconstitutional. Instead, the Court merely explained that the FSIA cannot be

read in a vacuum and must be read in conjunction with all other requirements for federal

jurisdiction. Even if Air NZ would otherwise have had the right to remove under the FSIA, it

cannot do so where, as here, Plaintiff lacks standing. Cf. Toxic Injuries Corp. v. Safety-Kleen

Corp., 57 F. Supp. 2d 947, 952-55 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (concluding, in a Proposition 65 case

removed under diversity jurisdiction, that the case must be remanded because the plaintiff

lacked standing).

In short, as the Court explained in its remand order, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear

this case. Consequently, it remanded the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). As Air NZ

acknowledges, orders remanding a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under this

section are not reviewable on appeal, nor may the district court reconsider such orders once it

has certified the remand order to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); Seedman v. U.S. Dist.

Case 3:05-cv-01799-TEH Document 77 Filed 08/24/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1The cases cited by Air NZ in support of its motion are all distinguishable. See

Snodgrass v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 147 F.3d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir. 1998)

(remand order reviewable where district court used discretion to decline to exercise

jurisdiction pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act); Maui Land & Pineapple Co. v.

Occidental Chemical Corp., 24 F. Supp. 2d 1083, 1085-86 (D. Haw. 1998) (same); Hudson

United Bank v. LiTenda Mortgage Corp., 142 F.3d 151, 159 (3d Cir. 1998) (same where

district court remanded case after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)); In re Digicon Marine, Inc., 966 F.2d 158, 160-61 (5th Cir. 1992)

(same where remand was based on failure to comply with removal statute, as opposed to lack

of subject matter jurisdiction); In re TMI Litig. Cases Consol. II, 940 F.2d 832, 836 (3d Cir.

1991) (same where remand was based on unconstitutionality of federal statute and remand

order was certified for interlocutory appeal by district court and stayed prior to being certified

to state court).

3

Court, 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, this Court is without jurisdiction to

reconsider its remand order or to grant a certificate for interlocutory appeal.1

Moreover, even if this Court had jurisdiction, it would deny Air NZ’s request for leave

to file a motion for reconsideration because Air NZ has failed to establish that there has been a

material change in fact or law, or that there was a “manifest failure by the Court to consider

material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court.” Civ. L.R.

7-9(b) (discussing requirements for motions for leave to file a motion for reconsideration). 

Air NZ disagrees with the Court’s ruling, but it has not met the standard for allowing a motion

for reconsideration.

For all of the above reasons, Air NZ’s motion is DENIED. This Court finds no good

cause to allow a motion for reconsideration and, moreover, the Court has been divested of

jurisdiction in this case because the remand was based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction

and the remand order has already been certified to state court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 08/24/05 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:05-cv-01799-TEH Document 77 Filed 08/24/05 Page 3 of 3