Davis et al. v. Sunoco Pipeline Limited Partnership

Filing 10

ORDER Requiring Plaintiffs to Respond to Defendants' Arguments Regarding Jurisdiction re 8 MEMORANDUM in Support of Federal Question Jurisdiction. (Response due by 10/19/2016.) Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
VANESSA DAVIS, et al.,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-cv-13205
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
SUNOCO PIPELINE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al.
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’
ARGUMENTS REGARDING JURISDICTION (ECF # 8)
On May 20, 2016, Vanessa Davis and fourteen other individual plaintiffs (the
“Plaintiffs”) filed this action in St. Clair County Circuit Court against Sunoco
Pipeline Limited Partnership, Sunoco Logistics Partners Operations GP LLC
(together the “Sunoco Defendants”) and three other co-defendants. (See ECF #1 at
11, Pg. ID 11.) Plaintiffs only assert two state law claims: nuisance and negligent
nuisance. (Id at 15-18.)
On September 6, 2016, the Sunoco Defendants filed a Notice of Removal in
this Court. In the Notice of Removal, the Sunoco Defendants assert that federal
question jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and that removal is
appropriate pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §1446. (Id at 4.) The Sunoco Defendants assert
that this Court has federal question jurisdiction over this action on the ground that

1

the federal Pipeline Safety Act (“PSA”), 49 U.S.C. §16101 et seq., completely
preempts Plaintiffs’ state law claims. (Id.)
On September 9, 2016, the Court ordered the Sunoco Defendants to show
cause why the Court has federal question jurisdiction in this action. Specifically, the
Court asked the Sunoco Defendants to: “(1) set forth in substantially more detail
how and why the PSA gives rise to “complete preemption” rather than “defensive”
preemption; (2) address the complete preemption analysis in Stutler v. Marathon
Pipe Line Co., 998 F. Supp. 968 (S.D. Ind. 1998); and (3) cite all decisions known
to them in which any federal court has ruled that it has federal question jurisdiction
based upon complete preemption under the PSA.” (ECF #2 at 2, Pg. ID at 23.) On
September 26, 2016, the Sunoco Defendants responded to this order with a detailed
substantive memorandum in support of the Court’s federal question jurisdiction in
this action (the "Sunoco Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction”).
(See ECF # 8.)
The Court believes that a response from Plaintiffs would assist the Court as it
reviews the merits of the Sunoco Defendants’ arguments in support of the Court’s
jurisdiction. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a
comprehensive response to the Sunoco Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of
Jurisdiction. The response shall address all of the arguments presented in the Sunoco

2

Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction. Plaintiffs shall file their
response by no later than October 19, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: September 27, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on September 27, 2016, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3