Olarte v. Neale

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: September 5, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-02021
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARIA MAGDALENA OLARTE, Case No. 24-cv-02021-AMO

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. REMAND

10 SERGEY BRIN, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 34 Defendants. 11

12 13 Lance Maclean died in a plane crash off the California coast on May 20, 2023. ECF 1-3 14 ¶¶ 1, 30-34. His remains, and the aircraft wreckage, now lie within the Greater Farallones 15 National Marine Sanctuary. Id. ¶ 3. Maclean’s surviving spouse – Maria Magdalena Olarte – 16 seeks to recover his remains, among other relief, and commenced this action in Santa Clara 17 Superior Court on February 8, 2024. ECF 1-1. The claims in the operative first amended 18 complaint are: (1) tortious interference with a dead body, (2) wrongful death, (3) survival, 19 (4) mandatory injunction, (5) products liability, and (6) conversion. ECF 1-3 ¶¶ 128-207. 20 On April 3, 2024, Defendants removed the case to this Court, claiming that Olarte’s state 21 law claims raise substantial disputed federal questions sufficient to give rise to federal jurisdiction. 22 ECF 1 at 6-9. First, Defendants argue that Olarte’s claims for tortious interference with a dead 23 body and conversion “turn on whether the owners and operators of the accident aircraft are subject 24 to the duties imposed by two federal statutes – The Wreck Act, 14 U.S.C. § 86, and The Rivers 25 and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. § 401, et seq. – and, thus, obligated to recover the aircraft’s 26 fuselage and the remains of Mr. Maclean, including his personal property.” ECF 1 at 7; ECF 31 at 27 12. Second, Defendants argue that Olarte’s claim for a mandatory injunction directing Defendants 1 Administration, violate the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1431, et seq., thus 2 requiring construction of the relevant federal statutes and regulations. ECF 1 at 7-8; ECF 31 at 12. 3 Neither argument is grounds for denying Olarte’s now-pending motion to remand. 4 Federal jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if “a federal issue is: ‘(1) necessarily 5 raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without 6 disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress. ’ ” City of Oakland v. BP PLC, 969 7 F.3d 895, 906 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258 (2013)). If all four 8 requirements are met, “federal jurisdiction exists because there is a serious federal interest in 9 claiming the advantages thought to be inherent in a federal forum, which can be vindicated 10 without disrupting Congress’s intended division of labor between state and federal courts.” Cnty. 11 of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., 32 F.4th 733, 746-47 (9th Cir. 2022), cert. denied sub nom. 12 Chevron Corp. v. San Mateo Cnty., Cal., 143 S. Ct. 1797 (2023) (internal quotations and citations 13 omitted). 14 The relevant inquiry “often focuses on the third requirement, which asks whether the case 15 ‘turn[s] on substantial questions of federal law. ’ ” Cnty. of San Mateo, 32 F.4th at 747 (citing 16 Oakland, 969 F.3d at 905) (modification in original). “An issue has such importance when it 17 raises substantial questions as to the interpretation or validity of a federal statute . . . , or when it 18 challenges the functioning of a federal agency or program . . . .” Id. at 905 (citations omitted). An 19 issue may also “qualify as substantial when it is a pure issue of law . . . that directly draws into 20 question the constitutional validity of an act of Congress, . . . or challenges the actions of a federal 21 agency, . . . and a ruling on the issue is both dispositive of the case and would be controlling in 22 numerous other cases.” Id. (citations omitted). “By contrast, a federal issue is not substantial if it 23 is fact-bound and situation-specific . . . or raises only a hypothetical question unlikely to affect 24 interpretations of federal law in the future . . . .” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). 25 Assuming, without deciding, that the remaining elements are met, the federal issues 26 Defendants assert as the basis for federal jurisdiction here – whether they owe Olarte a duty under 27 federal law and can comply with any injunction issued without violating federal law – are not 1 immediate suit; that will always be true when the state claim “necessarily raise[s]’ a disputed 2 || federal issue ....” Gunn, 568 U.S. at 260 (modification in original). Rather, in evaluating 3 whether that disputed federal issue is substantial, the Court must look “to the importance of the 4 || issue to the federal system as a whole.” Jd. That element of importance is missing here. The 5 || federal issues Defendants raise are certainly significant to this litigation, but they are “fact-bound 6 || and situation-specific.” See Oakland, 969 F.3d at 905 (finding that “evaluation of the Cities’ 7 claim that the Energy Companies’ activities amount to a public nuisance would require factual 8 || determinations, and a state-law claim that is ‘fact-bound and situation-specific’ is not the type of 9 || claim for which federal-question jurisdiction lies.”). As such, whether Defendants are liable on 10 Olarte’s state tort claims or can comply with any injunctive relief awarded do not present □□ 11 context-free inquiry into the meaning of a federal law” that would be necessary to find a 12 substantial federal question. See Bennett v. Southwest Airlines Co., 484 F.3d 907, 910 (7th Cir. 5 13 2007) (reversing judgment of the district court with instructions to remand to state court, noting 14 “[t]hat some standards of care used in tort litigation come from federal law does not make the tort 3 15 || claim one ‘arising under’ federal law”). 16 For these reasons, the Court finds that there is no federal jurisdiction in this matter. 3 17 Accordingly, Olarte’s motion to remand is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to transmit 18 the file in this matter back to Santa Clara County Superior Court. All pending deadlines and 19 || hearing scheduled before this Court are VACATED. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: September 5, 2024 22 (Nnaceh Mdllco ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN United States District Judge 25 26 27 28