Copeland v. 3M Company

Background

The plaintiffs alleged that they used 3M’s Combat Arms Earplugs, Version 2, and nevertheless suffered hearing loss and tinnitus. They brought state-law claims alleging that 3M failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions about properly fitting and safely wearing the earplugs.

Casey Copeland used the earplugs at a sniper training camp while employed as a police officer in Louisiana. James Neal was issued the earplugs at a police academy and with his equipment while working in Ohio law enforcement. Rich Jaterka used them while operating trucks and riding in aircraft transport vehicles in Iraq, where he was exposed to loud sounds from improvised explosive devices and mortar attacks. Rafael Viesca used them while working as a canine handler in Iraq at checkpoints.

Removal and Remand

The plaintiffs originally filed in Minnesota state court. 3M removed the case to federal court, asserting the federal contractor defense, the combatant activities exception, and the federal enclave doctrine. The plaintiffs moved to remand, meaning they asked the federal court to return the case to state court because the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court explained that state-law claims generally cannot be moved to federal court merely because the defendant raises a federal defense. It considered whether the Federal Officer Removal Statute or the federal enclave doctrine supplied an exception.

Federal Contractor Defense

The court held that 3M was precluded from asserting federal jurisdiction based on the federal contractor defense. The defense can protect a federal contractor from certain state failure-to-warn claims when the United States approved reasonably precise specifications, the equipment matched those specifications, and the contractor warned the United States about known dangers that the United States did not know about. The court had reached the same conclusion about 3M’s defense in two earlier related proceedings involving the same earplug failure-to-warn issues.

Combatant Activities Exception

The court held that the combatant activities exception was not a colorable defense. This exception can protect certain combat-related conduct from liability, and some courts have extended it to private contractors integrated into combat operations or supplying highly sophisticated military equipment with no civilian equivalent.

The court found that 3M was not integrated into combat activities like a soldier, did not supply a combat weapon used against enemy forces, and did not provide equipment comparable to a weapons guidance system or missile. The earplugs were also marketed and sold to civilians. The court further found that 3M had not shown substantial government control over the earplugs or that battlefield decisions or orders directed the alleged failure to warn.

Federal Enclave Doctrine

The court held that the federal enclave doctrine did not apply. A federal enclave is land within a state over which the federal government has accepted jurisdiction, such as certain military bases. The court found that Copeland and Neal alleged injuries at firing ranges that were not on stateside military bases, while Jaterka and Viesca alleged injuries that occurred in Iraq. The court therefore concluded that none of the alleged injuries occurred on a federal enclave.

Rulings

Because the plaintiffs pleaded only state-law claims and 3M’s asserted defenses were either unavailable or inapplicable, the court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge John R. Tunheim granted the plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand and denied the defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings. The opinion did not decide whether the plaintiffs would ultimately prevail on their failure-to-warn claims.