Opinion ID: 4536540
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: On appeal from the district court’s order remanding complaints to the state court from which they had been removed, the panel dismissed the appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed in part, holding that defendants did not carry their burden of establishing the criteria for federalofficer removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The County of San Mateo and other cities and counties filed six complaints in California state court against more than thirty energy companies, alleging nuisance and other causes of action arising from the role of fossil fuel products in global warming. The energy companies removed the cases to federal court. The district court granted plaintiffs’ motions to remand, rejecting all eight of the grounds on which the energy companies relied for subject-matter jurisdiction. Dismissing in part, the panel held that under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), it had jurisdiction to review the removal order only to the extent the order addressed whether removal was proper under § 1442(a)(1). The panel concluded that the nonreviewability clause of § 1447(d) applied because the district court remanded based on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Declining to follow the Seventh Circuit, the panel held that under the “exception clause” of § 1447(d), authorizing review of removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 and 1443, it had