Plaintiff State of Connecticut filed the present action against defendant tobacco companies in state court. Plaintiff's seven-count complaint alleges violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Connecticut Antitrust Act, and Connecticut common law.
Plaintiff disputes jurisdiction and moves to remand to state court.
The right or immunity must be such that it will be supported if the Constitution or laws of the United States are given one construction or effect, and defeated if they receive another. A genuine and present controversy, not merely a possible or conjectural one, must exist with reference thereto, and the controversy must be disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unaided by the answer or the petition for removal. For instance, in many contexts plaintiff's claim may be one that is exclusively governed by federal law, so that the plaintiff necessarily is stating a federal cause of action, whether he chooses to articulate it that way or not. If the only remedy available to plaintiff is federal, because of preemption or otherwise, and the state courts necessarily must look to federal law in passing on the claim, the case is removable regardless of what is in the pleading. The classic application of the artful pleading doctrine occurs in the context of federal preemption of state law.