The case of Avitts v. Amoco Production Co., 53 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 1995), is a significant decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that deals with the scope of federal subject matter jurisdiction in removal cases. It emphasizes that federal jurisdiction cannot be presumed or inferred from vague references to federal law in a plaintiff’s complaint. The ruling highlights the principle that a plaintiff is the master of the complaint and may limit claims to state law to prevent removal to federal court. The court’s analysis provides important clarification on when federal jurisdiction is properly invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 1441.
Citation
Avitts v. Amoco Production Co., 53 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 1995).
Facts of Avitts v. Amoco Production Co.
A group of property owners, led by W.H. Avitts, filed suit in Texas state court against Amoco Production Co. and several other oil companies. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ oil and gas operations in the West Hastings Field had caused environmental damage to their property.
The plaintiffs’ original complaint cited damages arising “in violation of not only state law but also federal law.” However, the complaint did not specify which federal statutes were violated. Defendants seized on this reference to federal law and removed the case to federal court in the Southern District of Texas, contending that federal question jurisdiction was implicated.
Once in federal court, the defendants filed a motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court denied this motion. Plaintiffs subsequently filed amended complaints, which eliminated any reference to federal law and confined their claims entirely to state law causes of action.
Despite several opportunities to raise federal causes of action, the plaintiffs never did so. Later in the litigation, plaintiffs mentioned the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) in the Joint Pretrial Order. However, those references were made solely in connection with the method for calculating damages, not as substantive bases for relief.
The district court issued interim orders requiring the defendants to conduct an environmental study and to pay approximately $650,000 in interim costs and attorneys’ fees. The defendants appealed these orders, arguing that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because no federal claim had been properly pleaded.
Procedural History in Avitts v. Amoco Production Co.
- Plaintiffs filed their complaint in Texas state court, alleging property damage caused by defendants’ oil and gas operations.
- The defendants removed the case to federal court, citing federal law references in the plaintiffs’ complaint.
- The district court denied the defendants’ motion for a more definite statement.
- Plaintiffs filed several amended complaints, each of which contained only state law claims and omitted references to federal law.
- The district court nonetheless exercised jurisdiction, issuing interim orders including an environmental study and costs against the defendants.
- The defendants appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging the district court’s jurisdiction.
Issue
The central issue in Avitts v. Amoco Production Co. was whether a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over a case that originated in state court when the plaintiff’s complaint made only a vague reference to federal law but failed to state a federal cause of action.
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis in Avitts v. Amoco Production Co.
The Fifth Circuit carefully analyzed whether the federal district court properly exercised jurisdiction after removal. It noted that the plaintiffs’ original complaint included a reference to federal law but did not identify any specific federal statute or claim. This lack of specificity meant that no federal cause of action was actually pleaded.
The appellate court further observed that in subsequent amended complaints, plaintiffs deliberately omitted any references to federal law, instead relying exclusively on state law claims. Because federal jurisdiction must appear on the face of the well-pleaded complaint, the plaintiffs’ decision to restrict their claims to state law effectively eliminated any basis for federal jurisdiction.
The defendants argued that federal jurisdiction should nonetheless apply because the plaintiffs mentioned CERCLA and OPA in the Joint Pretrial Order. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that pretrial references to federal statutes as methods for calculating damages do not transform them into substantive claims. For jurisdictional purposes, it is the complaint—not later filings—that controls.
The court also addressed the defendants’ contention that supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 could apply. The Fifth Circuit dismissed this argument, reasoning that supplemental jurisdiction requires the presence of a federal claim as an anchor, which was absent here. Without an underlying federal cause of action, supplemental jurisdiction cannot create federal jurisdiction where none exists.
The Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Because jurisdiction is a threshold requirement, all of the district court’s interim orders—including those compelling defendants to conduct studies and pay interim costs—were void.
Avitts v. Amoco Production Co. Judgment
The Fifth Circuit held that a federal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a case that merely references federal law without actually asserting a federal cause of action. The orders of the district court were vacated, and the case was remanded to Texas state court.
Conclusion
In Avitts v. Amoco Production Co., the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed the strict standards governing removal and federal jurisdiction. The court underscored that vague or incidental references to federal law are insufficient to create federal question jurisdiction. Only when a plaintiff specifically pleads a federal cause of action can federal courts properly assume jurisdiction upon removal.
This ruling serves as a reminder of the plaintiff’s role as master of the complaint, reinforcing that litigants cannot be forced into federal court unless jurisdiction clearly exists under federal statutes. It also illustrates the limits of supplemental jurisdiction and clarifies that references to federal law for damage calculations do not, on their own, establish federal jurisdiction.