Minn. v. API

Minn. v. API

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff State of Minnesota ("the State") commenced this action in state court against Defendants American Petroleum Institute ("API"), Exxon Mobil Corporation, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, Koch Industries, Inc., Flint Hills Resources LP, and Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend (collectively, "Defendants"), asserting five causes of action for violations of Minnesota common law and consumer protection statutes. Defendants removed the action to federal court and the Court granted the State's motion to remand. Defendants subsequently filed a Motion to Stay execution of the remand order. Because the Court finds that issuing a stay comports with the discretionary factors for a stay pending appeal and is the most prudent course of action at this time, the Court will grant Defendants' Motion to Stay the remand order. However, the Court recognizes that the balance of factors justifying a stay will likely shift over time, and will consider reassessing the stay in twelve months, should the appeal remain [*3]  unresolved at that time.

The State has also filed a Motion for Attorney Fees. Because the Court finds that Defendants' asserted grounds for removal were not objectively unreasonable, the Court will deny this Motion.

BACKGROUND

The facts of this case are well known to the Court and parties. See Minnesota v. API, No. 20-1636, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62653, 2021 WL 1215656, at *1-3 (D. Minn. Mar. 31, 2021). As relevant here, the State commenced this action in state court alleging that Defendants perpetrated and directed a misinformation campaign over several decades, designed to mislead the public about the dangers of fossil fuels and their relation to climate change. (Notice of Removal, Ex. A ("Compl.") ¶¶ 82-131, July 27, 2020, Docket No. 1-1.) The Complaint asserted five counts: (1) violations of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, Minn. Stat. § 325F.69; (2) failure to warn under common law theories of strict liability and negligence against all Defendants except API; (3) common law fraud and misrepresentation; (4) violations of the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minn. Stat. § 325D.44; and (5) violations of the Minnesota False Statement in Advertising Act, Minn. Stat. § 325F.67. (Id. ¶¶ 184-242.)

Defendants removed the action to federal court, raising seven grounds for federal jurisdiction over this matter: (1) federal common law; (2) the "Grable doctrine"; (3) the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1); (4) the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1349(b); (5) [*4]  federal enclave jurisdiction; (6) the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b); and (7) diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Notice of Removal at 11-12, July 27, 2020, Docket No. 1.)

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.