Opinion ID: 15663
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Complete Preemption and Removal

Text: Pursuant to statute, removal is generally available to the defendant in any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction founded on the existence of a claim or right arising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 at the time of removal, this court now has supplemental jurisdiction over all state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. McClelland v. Gronwaldt, 958 F.Supp. 280, 283 (E.D. Tex. 1995). 10 See also Jones v. Roadway Express, Inc., 936 F.2d 789, 792 (5th Cir. 1991) (The Supreme Court has held that, under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction, a federal district court has discretion to remand a properly removed case to state court when all federal-law claims have been eliminated and only pendent statelaw claims remain.) (citation omitted); and Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co. v. Dresser Indus., 972 F.2d 580, 585 (5th Cir. 1992) (stating standard of review). 8 under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and (b). In the case at bar, although no federal issue appeared on the face of the motion for injunctive relief that provided the basis for removal, the district court held that it had federal question jurisdiction based on theories of complete preemption under both the LMRA and ERISA. While federal courts typically ascertain the existence of federal question jurisdiction by applying the familiar wellpleaded complaint rule,11 there exists a corollary to this rule, which is most frequently referred to as the doctrine of complete preemption. This doctrine has been used to define limited categories of state law claims that are completely preempted such that any civil complaint raising this select group of claims is necessarily federal in character, no matter how it is characterized by the complainant in the relevant pleading. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 107 S.Ct. 1542, 1546 (1987). In effect, the application of complete preemption converts an ordinary state common law complaint into one stating a federal claim for purposes of the well-pleaded complaint rule. Id. at 1547. Because they are recast as federal claims, state law claims that are held to be completely preempted give rise to federal 11 Ordinarily our arising under analysis focuses on the plaintiffs’ well-pleaded complaint, for [i]t is long-settled law that a cause of action arises under federal law only when the plaintiff’s well pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 107 S.Ct. 1542, 1546 (1987). 9 question jurisdiction and thus may provide a basis for removal.12 The Supreme Court has held the doctrine of complete preemption applicable to certain claims preempted by ERISA, as well as to certain claims preempted by the LMRA.13