Bell v. 3M Company

Background

Rodney Bell, James Lake, Lewis Murph, and Franklin Patrick filed four related product-liability cases against 3M Company and Aearo Technologies LLC. The plaintiffs alleged that they used Combat Arms Earplugs, Version 2, to protect against loud sounds. They claimed that 3M failed to instruct them to fold back the earplug’s third flange and failed to warn that the earplug could be ineffective if they did not do so. They alleged hearing loss and/or tinnitus as a result.

The plaintiffs filed their cases in Minnesota state court, asserting a single failure-to-warn claim in each case. 3M removed the cases to federal court and argued that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction based on the government-contractor defense, the combatant-activities exception, and Article IV of the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs moved to remand, meaning they asked the federal court to return the cases to state court. 3M also asked for jurisdictional discovery concerning certain plaintiffs.

Analysis

A defendant seeking removal bears the burden of showing that the federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction. The court stated that doubts about federal jurisdiction must be resolved in favor of remand.

The court relied on its prior rulings in related cases. It had previously concluded that 3M failed to present legally supportable government-contractor and combatant-activities defenses. It had also previously concluded that Article IV jurisdiction was lacking for combat areas in Iraq. Because those jurisdictional grounds had already been litigated and rejected in final judgments, the court held that 3M was precluded from asserting them again in these cases.

The court separately considered 3M’s Article IV argument concerning combat areas in Afghanistan. Article IV gives Congress power to regulate territory or other property belonging to the United States, but the court stated that Congress must affirmatively exercise that power before it can support federal jurisdiction. The court concluded that two agreements cited by 3M—agreements entered into by the State Department in 2003 and 2014—did not show that Congress had exercised that power. The court also noted that the agreements did not give the United States exclusive sovereignty over Afghanistan and did not extend their provisions concerning certain criminal and civil offenses by military personnel to contractors or contractor employees.

The court denied 3M’s request for jurisdictional discovery because the existing allegations and declarations gave the court enough information to decide the jurisdictional arguments raised. The court also noted that 3M was not relying on federal-enclave jurisdiction in these cases.

Disposition

The court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims. It granted the motions to remand filed in Bell, Lake, Murph, and Patrick, and ordered that judgment be entered accordingly. Chief Judge John R. Tunheim signed the order on May 10, 2021.