Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermens Associations, Inc. v. Chevron Corp.

Background

The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Inc. sued Chevron Corp. and other defendants on behalf of itself and its members. The complaint described the members as crab fishermen, fishing businesses, and local fishermen’s marketing associations along the West Coast. It alleged that climate change caused lost fishing opportunities and financial injuries, and it sought damages from energy companies for those losses.

The defendants removed the case from state court to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, a federal law that permits removal of certain class actions and similar representative lawsuits. The Federation asked the court to remand, meaning return, the case to state court.

Reasoning

The court concluded that the complaint pleaded a representative action under section 382 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. That provision allows a plaintiff to seek relief on behalf of people who are not parties to the case. The court found that a damages action under section 382 resembles a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because both involve requirements concerning common issues, the size of the group, notice, and adequate representation.

The Federation argued that it had not cited section 382, invoked Rule 23, or formally alleged that it was bringing a class action. The court rejected that argument, explaining that removal jurisdiction depends on the substance of the complaint rather than the labels used. The court also rejected the Federation’s assertion that it sought only injunctive relief, finding that the complaint repeatedly sought damages for injuries suffered by members.

The court stated that the complaint was removable based on the circumstances existing when the defendants removed it. It also said the defendants’ other removal theories—based on federal common law, complete preemption, admiralty jurisdiction, federal-enclave jurisdiction, bankruptcy jurisdiction, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the federal-question doctrine discussed in Grable, and federal-officer removal—did not provide a valid basis for removal.

Ruling and Next Steps

The court denied the motion to remand. It did not decide the underlying state-law claims. The court noted that those claims were novel and that state courts might be better suited to adjudicate them, so it planned to explore whether another basis existed to decline jurisdiction. If not, the court said it was tentatively inclined to stay the case while the Federation appealed the remand ruling. A further case management conference was scheduled for December 1, 2023, and a joint case management statement was due November 28, 2023.

Judge Vince Chhabria signed the order.