Court Opinion

ID: 9488518
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:47:43.170031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:56.129365
License: Public Domain

EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
While I agree with the majority that GNB’s request in Count One of its complaint for a declaration of nonliability under CERC-LA arises under federal law, I do not agree that Gould alleged the existence of an actual controversy over Gould’s CERCLA liability to GNB. Because the actual controversy requirement is a “separate and distinct jurisdictional question of constitutional dimension,” Nuclear Engineering Co. v. Scott, 660 F.2d 241, 251 (7th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 993, 102 S.Ct. 1622, 71 L.Ed.2d 855 (1982), I would therefore conclude that the district court lacked federal jurisdiction over Count One.1
To support its conclusion that GNB adequately alleged the existence of an actual controversy, the majority points to the fact that “GNB’s complaint specifically asks for a declaration of nonliability under CERCLA.” It cannot be true, however, that a request for a declaration of nonliability is sufficient to allege the existence of a pre-existing actual controversy. Otherwise, a party could obtain an advisory opinion merely by requesting a declaration of nonliability, thereby undermining the requirement that an actual controversy precipitate the declaratory judgment action.
The majority suggests that GNB’s request for a declaration of nonliability under CERC-LA is sufficient because CERCLA issues are “inextricably related” to the interpretation of an indemnification agreement. Under this view, an actual controversy over the scope of an indemnification agreement will so impli*626cate CERCLA liability that such a dispute will necessarily include an actual controversy over CERCLA liability.
The case the majority cites for this proposition illustrates that this relationship exists only in some circumstances. In Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. v. Lefton Iron & Metal Co., 14 F.3d 321 (7th Cir.1994), this Court pointed out that in allocating response costs in a CERCLA contribution action,2 the relevant factors for consideration include “any contracts between the parties bearing on the allocation of cleanup costs.” Id. at 326. Thus, a CERCLA contribution action will often incorporate a dispute over the parties’ contractual allocation of CERCLA liabilities, and the threat of a CERCLA contribution action may indeed imply an actual controversy over contractual liability.
However, the converse is not necessarily true. It does not follow from Kerr-McGee Chemical that a court must resolve CERC-LA liability to interpret an indemnification agreement. One need only examine the majority’s interpretation of the Restated Assumption Agreement in this case to see that no issues of CERCLA liability are “inextricably related” to the interpretation of this contract. See majority opinion, swpra at Part II.C. Therefore, a dispute over the meaning of an indemnification agreement does not imply the threat of a statutory contribution action under CERCLA.
The majority’s analysis also suggests that the actual controversy issue is, to some degree at least, a “prudential concern” that is “best left to the sound discretion of the district court,” citing Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2137, 132 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995). Wilton recites the well-established principle that a district court possesses discretion to decline to exercise its jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act. See id. at-, 115 S.Ct. at 2140. However, the district court’s discretion over whether to grant a declaratory judgment comes into play only when an actual controversy exists.3 In my view, the sufficiency of a declaratory judgment plaintiffs actual controversy allegations has nothing to do with a district court’s discretion not to exercise its declaratory judgment jurisdiction.
The majority’s reliance on the relationship between CERCLA liability and contractual liability in Kerr-McGee Chemical, combined with its reliance on the district court’s discretion in this case, has allowed it to avoid one nagging reality. Nowhere in GNB’s complaint is it alleged that Gould either threatened GNB with a CERCLA contribution action or did anything to suggest that such a suit was imminent.
In order to have invoked the district court’s jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act, GNB’s complaint was required to present a “case of actual controversy.”4 This Court has recognized that “the *627distinction between a ‘controversy’ in the Article III sense and an abstract question of law ‘is necessarily one of degree, and it would be difficult, if it would be possible, to fashion a precise test for determining in every case whether there is such a controversy.’ ”5 Nevertheless, “[t]he test to be applied to determine the existence of an actual controversy in the context of a declaratory judgment action is “whether ... there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.’”6 Whether such a controversy exists is determined “by reference to the time when the action was commenced,” Nuclear Engineering Co., 660 F.2d at 251, and if a controversy forms at a later stage in the litigation, it will not cure a jurisdictional defect, cf. id. at 253 (holding that “[sjince NEC’s complaint presented no actual controversy when filed, the district court should have dismissed the action,” but noting that the controversy had since ripened into an actual controversy).
In a case such as this one, in which a declaratory judgment plaintiff files an action in anticipation of a potential action by the declaratory judgment defendant, the threat of litigation is sufficient to create a justiciable controversy.7 “‘The defendant must have engaged in conduct giving rise to a reasonable apprehension on plaintiffs part that it will face ... suit or the threat of one if it commences or continues the activity in question.’ ”8
Consequently, we must determine whether GNB alleged a threat of CERCLA litigation that would cause it reasonably to apprehend a suit by Gould asserting CERCLA liability. In Count One of its complaint, GNB alleged as follows:
41. An actual controversy exists between GNB and Gould in that Gould contends, and GNB denies, that GNB is responsible for the liability which Gould incurs for the costs of environmental cleanups at the East Point, Georgia and Monroe, Michigan sites and at the common facilities in Granite City, Illinois, Monterey Park, California and Minneapolis, Minnesota.
42. This controversy between the parties is ripe because Gould has already committed to clean up the lead contaminated soil at the Monroe, Michigan site, has incurred response costs relative to this undertaking, and has stated its intention to hold GNB responsible for these costs and the costs Gould incurs relating to the East Point, Georgia; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Granite City, Illinois and Monterey Park, California sites.
Read out of context, the words “responsible for” are ambiguous; they could mean responsible under the Restated Assumption Agreement, and they could mean responsible under CERCLA. Other allegations in the complaint establish, however, that “responsible for” means responsible under the Restated Assumption Agreement:
20. After the Closing Date, Gould engaged in a course of conduct consistent *628with the provisions and intent of the Restated Assumption Agreement and in keeping with its representations and warranties in the Restated Assumption Agreement by accepting responsibility for liabilities it incurred under CERCLA and other environmental laws relating to the battery manufacturing facilities owned by Gould and with respect to waste treated or disposed of by Gould at common facilities.
21. Since 1988, however, Gould has taken a position contrary to the terms of the Restated Assumption Agreement and has asserted that GNB is responsible for liabilities that Gould incurs under CERCLA and other environmental laws relating to the battery manufacturing facilities owned by Gould and with respect to waste treated or disposed of by Gould at common facilities.
22. Specifically,_
26. In 1989, Gould demanded that GNB accept responsibility for any and all of the necessary costs of response incurred in connection with the cleanup of the East Point, Georgia site for which Gould was liable.[9]
29. In October, 1989, Gould demanded that GNB accept responsibility for any and all of the necessary costs of response incurred in connection with the cleanup of the Monroe, Michigan site for which Gould was liable.[10]
33. GNB has ... refused to accept responsibility for any necessary costs of response for which Gould is liable in connection with the cleanups of the Monroe, Michigan and East Point, Georgia sites,
(emphasis added). The remainder of the specific allegations describing the controversy are worded similarly, further demonstrating that Gould’s alleged attempt to hold GNB responsible for the response costs it incurred at the various named sites was grounded in its interpretation of the Restated Assumption Agreement, which differed from GNB’s interpretation.
These allegations may show that there was a live dispute between Gould and other parties regarding its CERCLA liability, but the actual controversy must be between the parties to the declaratory judgment action.11 The allegations may also show that an actual controversy existed between Gould and GNB regarding GNB’s responsibilities under the Restated Assumption Agreement, but the declaration sought must relate to the threatened action.12 Thus, I would hold that Count One fails the actual controversy requirement because GNB’s complaint contains no allegation that Gould had threatened to sue GNB under CERCLA13
*629Count Two, in which GNB sought a declaration of nonliability under contract, cannot sustain federal jurisdiction because it does not arise under federal law. As the majority states in its opinion, when a declaratory judgment plaintiff seeks a declaration of non-liability, federal question jurisdiction depends on whether federal question jurisdiction would exist over the presumed suit by the declaratory judgment defendant.14 Under § 1331, “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1988). “The “vast majority’ of cases that come within this grant of jurisdiction are covered by Justice Holmes’ statement that a ‘suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action.’ ”15 However, the Supreme Court has also noted that “a case may arise under federal law “where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turned on some construction of federal law.’ ”16
GNB’s request in Count Two for a declaration of nonliability under contract contemplates a breach of contract suit by Gould, a state cause of action, and the vindication of Gould’s rights under the Restated Assumption Agreement turns solely on the application of Illinois contract law. See majority opinion, supra at part II.C. Thus, Count Two does not arise under federal law, and the district court lacked federal question jurisdiction over it.
In a supplemental brief defending the district court’s jurisdiction, Gould contends that the district court properly exercised federal question jurisdiction over Count Two because federal common law governed the interpretation of the Restated Assumption Agreement. It is well settled that § 1331 will support claims founded upon federal common law.17 Gould cites to a line of cases holding that federal common law governs indemnification agreements involving CERCLA liabilities and further holding that state law provides the federal common law rule of decision.18
First, I note that the majority does not purport to apply Illinois law as a federal common law rule of decision. See majority opinion, supra at part II.C & n. 5. Second, this Court has held that state law governs the interpretation of indemnification agreements involving CERCLA liabilities without stating that state law provides the federal common law rule of decision. See Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Minstar, Inc., 41 F.3d 341, 344 (7th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1401, 131 L.Ed.2d 289 (1995) (holding that scope of indemnification agreement involving CERCLA liabilities “depends simply on the wording of the agreement interpreted in light of applicable state law governing indemnification agreements; there is no question of federal law”).
Third, the cases on which Gould relies in support of its argument that federal common *630law governs the interpretation of indemnification agreements involving CERCLA liabilities rest on the Supreme Court’s analysis in United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715, 99 S.Ct. 1448, 59 L.Ed.2d 711 (1979), an analysis that recent Supreme Court authority has abandoned.
In Kimbell Foods, the Court held that federal law determines the priority of liens stemming from federal lending programs. The Court explained, however, that:
Controversies directly affecting the operations of federal programs, although governed by federal law, do not inevitably require resort to uniform federal rules.... Whether to adopt state law or to fashion a nationwide federal rule is a matter of judicial policy “dependent upon a variety of considerations always relevant to the nature of the specific governmental interests and to the effects upon them of applying state law.”
Id. at 727-28, 99 S.Ct. at 1458 (citations omitted) (quoting United States v. Standard Oil Co., 332 U.S. 301, 310, 67 S.Ct. 1604, 1609, 91 L.Ed. 2067 (1947)). In Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 108 S.Ct. 2510, 101 L.Ed.2d 442 (1988), the Court moved away from the two-tiered analysis of Kimbell Foods to a simple choice between federal and state law, noting the functional equivalence of applying state law of its own force and applying state law as a federal common law rule of decision:
We refer here to the displacement of state law, although it is possible to analyze it as the displacement of federal-law reference to state law for the rule of decision. Some of our cases appear to regard the area in which a uniquely federal interest exists as being entirely governed by federal law, with federal law deigning to “borro[w],” United States v. Little Lake Misere Land Co., 412 U.S. 580, 594, 93 S.Ct. 2389, 2398, 37 L.Ed.2d 187 (1973), or “ineorporat[e]” or “adopt” United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715, 728, 729, 730, 99 S.Ct. 1448, 1458, 1459, 1459, 59 L.Ed.2d 711 (1979), state law except where a significant conflict with federal policy exists. We see nothing to be gained by expanding the theoretical scope of the federal preemption beyond its practical effect, and so adopt the more modest terminology. If the distinction between displacement of state law and displacement of federal law’s incorporation of state law ever makes a practical difference, it at least does not do so in the present case.
487 U.S. at 507 n. 3, 108 S.Ct. at 2516 n. 3 (emphasis added).19
For purposes of determining federal question jurisdiction in this case, I see no difference between a suit requiring the application of state law as such and a suit involving the application of state law as a federal rule of decision. Therefore, I would hold that because Gould’s presumed breach of contract action turns on an application of state law, whether of its own force or as incorporated by federal common law, Count Two does not “necessarily turn[] on some construction of federal law.”20
Lastly, I note that the Supreme Court’s decisions in National Farmers, Oneida Indian Nation, and Illinois v. Milwaukee are consistent with my analysis of federal question jurisdiction over Count Two of GNB’s complaint. Although the Supreme Court upheld federal question jurisdiction in each *631case based on the application of federal common law, the federal common law called for was federal common law in the traditional sense — a body of uniform, federal, non-statutory law, and there was no indication that state law would provide the federal rule of decision.21
In sum, GNB’s declaratory judgment complaint presented the district court with the following: an actual controversy between non-diverse parties over an issue of state law combined with a request for an advisory opinion on a federal question. I would hold that such a complaint does not properly invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

. For reasons I explain below, I also would hold that the district court lacked federal jurisdiction over Count Two, and thus over GNB's entire complaint.

. See 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(1) (1988) ("Any person may seek contribution from any other person who is liable or potentially liable under section 9607(a) of this title, during or following any civil action under section 9606 of this title or under section 9607(a) of this title.”).

. See 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (1988) ("In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, ... any court of the United States ... may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration...." (emphasis added)); Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of America, 316 U.S. 491, 494, 62 S.Ct. 1173, 1175, 86 L.Ed. 1620 (1942) ("Although the District Court had jurisdiction of the suit under the Federal Declaratory Judgments Act ..., it was under no compulsion to exercise that jurisdiction.”); Deveraux v. City of Chicago, 14 F.3d 328, 330 (5th Cir.1994) (noting district court’s discretion and stating, "It is also true, however, that courts may not exercise their discretionary power in the absence of an ‘actual controversy' between the parties”); Atlanta Int’l Ins. Co. v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co., 938 F.2d 81, 83 (7th Cir.1991) ("The Declaratory Judgment Act ... gives courts of the United States discretionary power to issue declaratory judgments. One of the predicates to the exercise of this power is that there be an actual controversy.”).

.28 U.S.C. § 2201. This requirement "tracks the ‘cases' or ‘controversies' requirement of article III.” Harris Trust and Sav. Bank v. E-II Holdings, Inc., 926 F.2d 636, 639 (7th Cir.) (citing Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617 (1937)), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 866, 112 S.Ct. 192, 116 L.Ed.2d 152 (1991). “The Supreme Court recently has reminded us that ‘[t]he exercise of judicial power under Art. Ill of the Constitution depends on the existence of a case or controversy,' and ‘a federal court [lacks] the power to render advisory opinions.' ” Deveraux, 14 F.3d at 330 (quoting Unit*627ed States Nat’l Bank v. Independent Ins. Agents of America, — U.S. -, -, 113 S.Ct. 2173, 2178, 124 L.Ed.2d 402 (1993)).

. Deveraux, 14 F.3d at 330 (quoting Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270, 273, 61 S.Ct. 510, 512, 85 L.Ed. 826 (1941)).

. Nuclear Engineering Co., 660 F.2d at 251-52 (quoting Maryland Casualty Co., 312 U.S. at 273, 61 S.Ct. at 512); accord Lake Carriers’ Ass’n v. MacMullan, 406 U.S. 498, 506, 92 S.Ct. 1749, 1755, 32 L.Ed.2d 257 (1972).

. See Cardinal Chem. Co. v. Morton Int’l, Inc., - U.S. -, -, 113 S.Ct. 1967, 1974-75, 124 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993) (noting that threat of infringement suit in intellectual property context could create "actual controversy”); Lake Carriers’ Ass’n, 406 U.S. at 507-08, 92 S.Ct. at 1755-56 (holding that threat of enforcement of statute created "actual controversy”); Trippe Mfg. Co. v. American Power Conversion Corp., 46 F.3d 624, 627 (7th Cir.1995) (noting that threat of trademark infringement suit would be sufficient to create "actual controversy”); Nuclear Engineering Co., 660 F.2d at 252 (stating that threat of enforcement of statute could create "actual controversy”).

.Trippe Manufacturing, 46 F.3d at 627 (quoting International Harvester Co. v. Deere & Co., 623 F.2d 1207, 1210 (7th Cir.1980)). “The focus on the inquiry must rest on the defendant's statements and conduct since an ‘apprehension alone, if not inspired by the defendant’s actions, does not give rise to an actual controversy.’ " Id. (quoting International Harvester, 623 F.2d at 1211).

9. GNB alleged that the current owner of the East Point, Georgia, site had "asserted that Gould was responsible under CERCLA for the necessary costs of response incurred in connection with the cleanup of the site.”

10. GNB alleged that the current owner of the Monroe, Michigan, site had "filed suit against Gould to recover the necessary costs of response it [had] incurred and [would] incur to clean up the site.”

. See Harris Trust, 926 F.2d at 639-40.

. See Zimmerman v. HBO Affiliate Group, 834 F.2d 1163, 1170 (3d Cir.1987) (holding that because it was "purely a matter of conjecture whether the defendants had threatened to file suit on the theory on which the plaintiff has requested a declaration ... the dispute lacked the immediacy and reality necessary to require a judicial declaration of rights as between the parties”).

. See Trippe Mfg., 46 F.3d at 627 (holding that no actual controversy existed because declarato-iy judgment defendant had not threatened trademark infringement suit and totality of circumstances did not reasonably suggest that suit was imminent).
Although I reach this conclusion based on the allegations in GNB's complaint, the summary judgment and trial records in this case confirm that no dispute had formed over GNB’s CERCLA liability. Letters from Gould to GNB, which supported GNB’s allegation that Gould was seeking to hold it responsible for Gould's CERCLA liabilities, specifically refer to the Restated Assumption Agreement but make no reference to GNB’s potential liability under CERCLA.
I also note that my reading of GNB's complaint does not rely on "heightened pleading requirements for environmental lawsuits.” GNB alleged the existence of an actual controversy over the interpretation of a contract and did not allege an actual controversy over CERCLA liability. The problem with GNB’s allegations is not that they are too general or conclusory; if anything, GNB’s allegations are too specific.

. Nuclear Engineering Co., 660 F.2d at 253 (citing Public Serv. Comm'n v. Wycoff Co., 344 U.S. 237, 248, 73 S.Ct. 236, 242, 97 L.Ed. 291 (1952)); see also Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 19, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 2851, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983) (noting that "[fjederal courts have regularly taken original jurisdiction over declaratory judgment suits in which, if the declaratory judgment defendant brought a coercive action to enforce its rights, that suit would necessarily present a federal question” (footnote omitted)).

. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808, 106 S.Ct. 3229, 3232, 92 L.Ed.2d 650 (1986) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 8-9, 103 S.Ct. at 2846 (quoting American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257, 260, 36 S.Ct. 585, 586, 60 L.Ed. 987 (1916))).

. Id. at 808-09, 106 S.Ct. at 3232-33 (quoting Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 9, 103 S.Ct. at 2846).

. National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845, 850, 105 S.Ct. 2447, 2450-51, 85 L.Ed.2d 818 (1985); Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666-67, 94 S.Ct. 772, 777, 39 L.Ed.2d 73 (1974); Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91, 100, 92 S.Ct. 1385, 1391, 31 L.Ed.2d 712 (1972).

. Mardan Corp. v. C.G.C. Music, Ltd., 804 F.2d 1454, 1457-60 (9th Cir.1986) (holding that federal common law governed interpretation of CERCLA indemnification agreement but applying New York law as federal common law rule of decision); accord Beazer East, Inc. v. Mead Corp., 34 F.3d 206, 211-15 (3d Cir.1994) (same, applying Alabama law as federal common law rule of decision), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1696, 131 L.Ed.2d 559 (1995); Olin Corp. v. Consolidated Aluminum Corp., 5 F.3d 10, 15 (2d Cir.1993) (same, applying New York law as federal rule of decision).

. More recently, in O’Melveny & Myers v. F.D.I.C., — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 2048, 129 L.Ed.2d 67 (1994), the Court repeated its emphasis on the question whether state or federal law governs:
[K]nowing whether “federal law governs” in the Kimbell Foods sense — a sense which includes federal adoption of state-law rules, see id., at 727-729, 99 S.Ct. at 1457-1459 — does not much advance the ball. The issue in the present case is whether the California rule of decision is to be applied to the issue of imputation or displaced, and if it is applied it is of only theoretical interest whether the basis for that application is California’s own sovereign power or federal adoption of California’s disposition.
Id. at-, 114 S.Ct. at 2053-54 (citing Boyle, 487 U.S. at 507 n. 3, 108 S.Ct. at 2516 n. 3).

. Merrell Dow, 478 U.S. at 808, 106 S.Ct. at 3232. See Dillon v. Combs, 895 F.2d 1175, 1176-77 (7th Cir.1990) (noting that "federal rule of decision,” not state law, must govern legal obligations for federal question jurisdiction to exist), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1023, 111 S.Ct. 670, 112 L.Ed.2d 663 (1991); American Policyholders Ins. Co. v. Nyacol Prods., 989 F.2d 1256, 1263 (1st Cir.1993) (noting that federal question jurisdiction based on federal common law would require application of uniform federal rule).

. See National Farmers, 471 U.S. at 852, 105 S.Ct. at 2452; Oneida Nation, 414 U.S. at 666-67, 94 S.Ct. at 777; Illinois v. Milwaukee, 406 U.S. at 93, 101-08, 92 S.Ct. at 1391-95. In Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 99 S.Ct. 2529, 61 L.Ed.2d 153 (1979), the Supreme Court implied, in dicta, that federal question jurisdiction could exist over a complaint requiring the application of federal common law incorporating state law as the rule of decision. There, the Court held that federal common law governs "whether changes in the course of a river affecting riparian land owned or possessed by the United States or by an Indian tribe have been avulsive or accretive," but that state law should be incorporated as the federal rule of decision. Id. at 673-74, 99 S.Ct. at 254CMU. The Court then noted, in response to an argument that this scheme would inadequately protect the federal interests at stake, that "the legal issues are federal and the federal courts will have jurisdiction to hear them.” Id. at 673-74, 99 S.Ct. at 2541 (emphasis added) (citing Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 94 S.Ct. 772, 39 L.Ed.2d 73 (1974)). That statement is clearly dicta, however, because federal subject matter jurisdiction in Wilson rested on the fact that the suit arose under a treaty. See United States v. Wilson, 433 F.Supp. 67, 68 (N.D. Iowa 1977), vacated, Omaha Indian Tribe, Treaty of 1854 with the United States v. Wilson, 575 F.2d 620 (8th Cir.1978), vacated, Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 99 S.Ct. 2529, 61 L.Ed.2d 153 (1979). Further, the Court’s dicta is inconsistent with the Court’s more recent emphasis on the source of the rule of decision in Boyle and O’Melveny.