2012 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

11-1-2012 

# J a r l Abr ah a mse n;v

. C ono coP hi l li p s
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 12-1199

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2012 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" J a rl Abr ah a m s e n ;v

. C onoc o P hi l l ips " (2012). 2012 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 215. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012/215NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 12

- 1199

___________ ABRAHAMSEN , ET AL.; ANDRE A SSEN ET AL

. ; ARNE AASEN ET AL

. ; AND AARSLAND ET AL

. Appellant s v. CONOCOPHILLIPS, CO.

___________ On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware (D.C. No. 1

- 10

- cv - 00692 ) District Judge: Honorable Gregory M. Sleet

___________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

OCTOBER 31, 2012
Be fore: SLOVITER, AMBRO and BARRY , Circuit Judges

(F iled : November 1, 2012 )

_________ OPINION

_________ SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.

The Plaintiffs in four cases filed under Delaware state law, Abrahamsen et al. , Andreassen et al. , Arne Aasen et al ., and Aarsland et al. (“Plaintiffs”) , appeal from the District Court‟s dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds of their claims against2

ConocoPhillips Company (“Conoco”)

. Because we find that federal subject

- matter jurisdiction does not exist in this case, we will vacate the order of the District Court and direct the District Court to remand the matter s to state court

. Background
Plaintiffs are four groups of Norwegian citizens, totaling 123 persons, who brought four separate complaints against Conoco in Delaware state c ourt for injuries sustained while working on rigs, platforms, a nd vessels in the North Sea for Conoco

. 1
Conoco removed all four suits to the Delaware District Co urt based on the jurisdictional provision of the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) and on federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(d), 1446, 1453

. Conoco then moved for dismissal of the actions on forum non conveniens grounds

. Plain tiffs filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to remand to state court for lack of subject

- matter jurisdiction. Rather than decide the motion to remand , the District Court exercise d its discretion under Sinochem Int’l . Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int’l. Shipping Corp

. , 549 U.S. 422, 425 (2007) , to bypass the jurisdictional inquiry in favor of

a non - merits dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds. ( 1 App. 4

- 6)
In Sinochem , the Supreme Court stated :

If . . . a court can readily determine that it lacks jurisdiction over the cause or the defendant, the proper course would be to dismiss on that ground. In the mine run of cases, jurisdiction will involve no arduous inquiry and both judicial economy and the consideration

1 Most Plaintiffs are former employees or contractors; some are family members and estates of Conoco‟s former employees and contractors.3

ordinarily accorded the plaintiff‟s choice of forum should impel the federal court to dispose of [jurisdictional] issue[s] first. But where subject

- matter

. . . jurisdiction is difficult to determine, and forum non conveniens considerations weigh heavily in favor of dismissal, the court pr operly takes the less burdensome course. Id. a t 436 (quotation marks and citations omitted).

On appeal , Plaintiffs argue that the dismissal of their claims was erroneous and that the District Court should have remanded the cases to state court for lack o f subject

matter jurisdiction. Introduction
We have an independent obligation to add ress our subject

- matter jurisdiction

. See Nesbit v. Gears Unlimited, Inc., 347 F.3d 72, 76

- 77 (3d Cir. 2003) ( holding that subject

matter jurisdiction is non

- waivable an d can be raised by the court sua sponte )

. That obligation here entails the authority to examine jurisdictional issues that the District Court chose to bypass, relying on Sinochem

. 2
CAFA Jurisdiction
CAFA grants the federal court s removal jurisdiction in “class action[s] , ” 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b), which it defines to include “„mass action [ s ] ‟ . . . in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs‟ claims involve common questions of law o r fact

. ” 28 U.S.C. §

2 The Ninth Circuit has exercised this authority in a similar situation

. See Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome , Inc. 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009).4

1332(d)(11)(B)(i). The mass action provision specifically excludes jurisdiction over cases in which “claims are joined upon motion of a defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)( i i) (II). When a “statute‟s language is plain” we must “enforce it according to its terms” as long as the result “is not absurd.” Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank , N.A. 530 U.S. 1, 6 (2000) (quotation marks omitted)

. The plain text of CAFA clearly precludes jurisdiction in this case . D espite the similarities of their claims, Plaintiffs did not propose to try their claims jointly. Because each suit includes fewer than one hundred persons, none of Plaintiffs‟ four suits meets CAFA‟s definition of a “mass action” and therefore no suit qua lifies for removal jurisdiction. 3 The clear lack of jurisdiction is underscored by CAFA‟s explicit exemption from jurisdiction of suits in which “the claims are joined upon motion of a defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)(II). 4
T his reading of CAFA is not “ absurd. ” I t is consistent with the well

- established rule of deference to plaintiffs ‟ choice of forum and the presumption against federal removal jurisdiction. See Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co. , 86 2 F.2d 38, 45

- 46 (3d Cir.

3 The law explicitly denies juris diction for “claims [which] have been consolidated or coordinated solely for pretrial proceedings

. ” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)(IV).

4 Other courts considering similar facts have also found no jurisdiction under CAFA‟s “mass action” provision. See An derson v. Bayer Corp. , 610 F.3d 390 , 392 (7th Cir. 2010) ( holding that CAFA removal jurisdiction did not apply in a case involving 396 plaintiffs who filed four “mostly identical complaints in state court”); Tanoh v. Dow Chem

. Co. , 561 F.3d 945, 950 (9th C ir. 2009) ( finding no removal jurisdiction in case in which 664 West African foreign nationals filed seven suits, each with fewer than one hundred plaintiffs)

.5

1988); Steel Valley Auth

. v. Union Switch & Signal Div. , 809 F.2d 1006, 1010 (3d Cir. 1987)

. 5 We therefore conclude that CAFA does not provide removal jurisdiction in this

case . Federal Question Jurisdiction
This case also falls outside of our federal question jurisdiction. Conoco argues that the Plaintiffs‟ suit s raise a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because they

“ „ implicat[e ] . . . our relations with foreign nations , ‟ ” and thus raise questions under federal common law. Appellee‟s Resp. Br. at 51 ( quoting Tex as Indus., Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc. , 451 U.S. 630, 641 (1981)). Federal

- common - law

- of

- foreign

- relations jurisdiction is rarely recognized by federal courts , especially for private disputes between private citizens and entities. E ven if we were to adopt the reasoning of the circuits with the broadest jurisdictional standards , we would not find jurisdiction in this case. Those circuits require intervention in the case by a foreign sovereign and proof that the lawsuit will significantly affect the f oreign government‟s vitality. See, e.g., Pache c o de Perez v.
AT&T Co. , 139 F.3d 1368, 1376

- 78 (11th Cir. 1998); Torres v. S

. Peru Copper Corp

. , 113 F.3d 540, 542

- 43 (5th Cir. 1997)

. Because Norway has not intervened here, the Norwegian government‟s “sove reignty over all petroleum

- based activities in its territorial

5 Conoco argues that reading CAFA to deny jurisdiction in this case “elevate [s] form over substa n ce” and encourag es jurisdictional “gamesmanship. ” Appellee‟s Br. at 48, 49. Even if true, these concerns are insufficient to militate against a plain reading of CAFA. See First Merchants Acceptance Corp. v. J.C. Bradford & Co. , 198 F.3d 394, 403 (3d Ci r. 1999) (“[O]nly absurd results and „the most extraordinary showing of contrary intentions‟ justify a limitation on the „plain meaning‟ of . . . statutory language.” ( quoting Garcia v. United States , 469 U.S. 70, 75 (1984))).6

waters and on its Continental Shelf,” Appellee‟s Resp. Br. at 51, is insufficient to generate federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Conclusion

There is no f

ederal subject

- ma tter jurisdiction in this case. We w ill therefore vacate the forum non conveniens dismissal and remand to the District Court with instruction s to remand to state court.