Allen v. 3M Company

Background

The opinion addressed eight related actions: Allen, No. 20-2380; Cavins, No. 20-2408; Abrams, No. 20-2419; Bolotin, No. 20-2481; Bodeau, No. 20-2506; Brown, No. 20-2643; Clerk, No. 20-2691; and Baker, No. 21-100. The plaintiffs alleged that 3M Company and Aearo Technologies LLC failed to give adequate instructions and warnings about how to fit and safely wear Combat Arms Earplugs, Version 2. They alleged that they consequently suffered hearing loss and/or tinnitus. The plaintiffs asserted a single state-law product-liability claim for failure to warn in Minnesota state court.

3M removed the actions to federal court. Removal is the process of transferring a case filed in state court to federal court. The plaintiffs moved to remand, meaning they asked the federal court to send the cases back because the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction—the legal authority to hear the cases.

Jurisdictional Grounds

The court held that 3M was precluded from asserting the government-contractor defense, the combatant-activities exception, and its interpretation of Article IV jurisdiction as grounds for removal. In earlier related cases, the court had determined that 3M had not raised a colorable government-contractor defense or combatant-activities exception and that Article IV jurisdiction was lacking for certain overseas combat areas. Because 3M had already litigated identical jurisdictional grounds and final judgments had remanded those actions, the court held that 3M could not assert those grounds again here.

Those rulings resolved the jurisdictional grounds for the Allen, Abrams, Bolotin, Bodeau, Brown, Clerk, and Baker actions and Plaintiff Rollins’s claims in the Cavins action.

Twentynine Palms Federal-Enclave Argument

3M also argued that the claims involving the Twentynine Palms military base arose on a federal enclave. A federal enclave is land over which the United States has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. The court explained that the relevant land had been acquired from Mexico and retained as public-domain land when California became a state. Under the applicable California statutes, exclusive federal jurisdiction required specified state filings and declarations, as well as acceptance of jurisdiction by the United States.

The court found that 3M did not show that the required filings or declarations had been made for the relevant lands. It also found that 3M did not show that the United States had accepted exclusive jurisdiction over those lands. A 1943 letter accepting jurisdiction over other lands did not apply because the lands at issue were under the control of the Defense Plant Corporation rather than the Department of War. The court further rejected 3M’s argument that California’s 1850 admission statute reserved exclusive federal jurisdiction. The court concluded that the United States had only owner-like rights over the Twentynine Palms land, not exclusive legislative jurisdiction, so the base was not a federal enclave.

Disposition

The court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims. It therefore granted all eight plaintiffs’ motions to remand: Allen et al., CV20-2380, Docket No. 10; Cavins et al., CV20-2408, Docket No. 9; Abrams et al., CV20-2419, Docket No. 9; Bolotin et al., CV20-2481, Docket No. 9; Bodeau et al., CV20-2506, Docket No. 9; Brown et al., CV20-2643, Docket No. 9; Clerk et al., CV20-2691, Docket No. 9; and Baker et al., CV21-100, Docket No. 7. The order stated that judgment should be entered accordingly.