But there is โno mechanical test for determining when an action aris[es] under federal law.โ R.I. Fishermen's Alliance, Inc. v. R.I. Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt., 585 F.3d 42, 47โ48 (1st Cir.2009) (citing Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 8, 103 S.Ct. 2841). As the Supreme Court has noted, the phrase โarising underโ has โresisted all attempts to frame a single, precise definition for determining which cases fall within, and which cases fall outside, the original jurisdiction of the district courts.โ
In particular, a "plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint must exhibit, within its four corners, either an explicit federal cause of action or a state-law cause of action that contains an embedded question of federal law that is both substantial and disputed." Rhode Island Fishermen's Alliance, Inc. v. Rhode Island Dep't of Environmental Management, 585 F.3d 42, 48 (1st Cir. 2009) ("Fishermen's Alliance"). The claims in the state court complaint as they existed at the time of removal govern the determination. Lawless v. Steward Health Care System, LLC, 894 F.3d 9, 17 (1st Cir. 2018).
First, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' Complaint โnecessarily raisesโ a federal question because their โasserted right to relief under state law requires resolution of a federal question.โ Id. at 5 (quoting R.I. Fishermen's Alliance, Inc. v. R.I. Dept. of Env. Mgmt., 585 F.3d 42 (1st Cir.2009) ). Defendants say that Plaintiffs' Complaint contains claims about federal law that satisfy this elementโspecifically, claims that 8 U.S.C. ยง 1621 violates the Equal Protection Clause and the Tenth Amendment, and that compliance with 8 U.S.C. ยง 1621 is not required in Maine.
. SeeRhode Island Fishermen's All., Inc. v. Rhode Island Dep't Of Env't Mgmt., 585 F.3d 42, 48 (1st Cir. 2009).
SeeRhode Island Fishermen's All., Inc. v. Rhode Island Dep't Of Env't Mgmt., 585 F.3d 42, 48 (1st Cir. 2009).
To overturn that ruling, RITC seeks to show that the Board's Dormant Commerce Clause analysis was mistaken. Thus, "it is not logically possible for [RITC] to prevail on [its] cause of action without affirmatively answering the embedded question of . . . federal law," R.I. Fishermen's All., Inc. v. R.I. Dep't of Env't Mgmt., 585 F.3d 42, 49 (1st Cir. 2009), which in this case concerns a question about the restrictions that the Dormant Commerce Clause imposes. Accordingly, the stated federal issue is "necessarily raise[d]."
This power is limited, however, by the so-called "well-pleaded complaint" rule, which requires that a federal matter appear "on the face" of a plaintiff's complaint. R.I. Fishermen's All., Inc. v. R.I. Dep't of Envt'l Mgmt., 585 F.3d 42, 48 (1st Cir. 2009) (citing Franchise Tax Bd. Of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr. for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 13, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983)). The "well-pleaded complaint" refers only to a plaintiff's affirmative claims and not any extraneous material such as anticipated defenses.
The signatories to the ASMFC "exercise joint regulatory oversight of their fisheries through the development of interstate fishery management plans." R.I. Fishermen's Alliance, Inc. v. R.I. Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt., 585 F.3d 42, 46 (1st Cir. 2009); accord Medeiros v. Vincent, 431 F.3d 25, 27 (1st Cir. 2005). From the inception of the ASMFC until 1993, participation in the interstate fishery management plans adopted by the Commission was voluntary. Medeiros, 431 F.3d at 27.
Within the context of Grable, a federal issue is disputed if it is "the primary focus of the Complaint," not "merely . . . a peripheral issue." Hawaii v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 469 F. Supp. 2d 842, 853 (D. Haw. 2006); see also Grable, 545 U.S. at 315 (the federal issue "appear[ed] to be the only legal or factual issue contested in the case"); Gunn, 133 S. Ct. at 1065 (the federal issue was "the central point of dispute"); R.I. Fishermen's Alliance, Inc. v. R.I. Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt., 585 F.3d 42, 51 (1st Cir. 2009) (the federal issue was "hotly contested"). Here, Volkswagen has not identified any actual dispute, much less one of primary importance, with respect to whether its defeat device interfered with emissions control systems installed on a motor vehicle "as required by the rules or regulations of the . . . [EPA]."
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441(a), any civil action brought in a state court over which federal courts have original jurisdiction may be removed by the defendant or the defendants to the federal district court for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending. Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana, 522 U.S. 470, 474 (1998); Rhode Island Fishermen's Alliance v. Rhode Island Dept. Of Environmental Management, 585 F.3d 42, 47 (1st Cir. 2009). District courts' original jurisdiction extends to civil cases arising under federal law.