By Ben Solis
Gongwer News Service
The Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy’s lawsuit against the Gerald R. Ford Airport Authority involving PFAS releases from aqueous film forming foam, a fire suppressant used that the property during trainings and other emergencies, will stay in state court after being moved to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, a 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled unanimously on Friday.
In an unpublished opinion written by Judge Eugene Siler Jr., joined by Judge Richard Griffin and Judge Andre Mathis, the panel in EGLE v. Gerald R. Ford International Airport Authority (USCOA Docket No. 24-1085) affirmed the federal district court’s ruling that some of the claims be moved back to state court, while parts involving third-party companies be moved to a federal court in South Carolina .
The claims were previously combined with third-party claims from the airport authority against the 3M Company, which kept the claims in federal court after being transferred from the Kent Circuit Court in May.
The state plaintiffs asked U.S. District Judge Jane Beckering of the Western District of Michigan to sever the claims raised in their underlying complaint from those raised by the airport authority against 3M Company, a third-party manufacturer of aqueous film-forming foams containing PFAS, which were used at the airport and caused contamination, as alleged in the initial complaint.
They also moved to remand their underlying claims to state court.
Beckering, in an order issued in August, granted the request to remand the state claims to the Kent Circuit Court, and severed the claims the airport authority filed against 3M. Those claims were to stay in federal court, Beckering ordered, and said she would continue to accept briefing from those parties.
The third-party case includes Tyco Fire Products and Chemguard Inc., in addition to 3M.
The airport authority appealed the ruling, to which Siler and his colleagues on the 6th Circuit panel agreed the case belonged in state court.
“Here, the Federal Aviation Administration’s oversight of the Airport Authority is comparable to the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation in (standing precedent), representing a typical regulatory relationship rather than a deputization of federal duties,” Siler wrote. “The FAA’s regulations apply to all airports seeking certification under Part 139. The Airport Authority’s compliance with these regulations constitutes adherence to a regulatory scheme applicable industry-wide, not assistance to a federal officer in carrying out a federal duty. Therefore, mere compliance with FAA regulations does not establish that the Airport Authority was ‘acting under’ a federal officer.”
Gongwer News Service
The Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy’s lawsuit against the Gerald R. Ford Airport Authority involving PFAS releases from aqueous film forming foam, a fire suppressant used that the property during trainings and other emergencies, will stay in state court after being moved to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, a 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled unanimously on Friday.
In an unpublished opinion written by Judge Eugene Siler Jr., joined by Judge Richard Griffin and Judge Andre Mathis, the panel in EGLE v. Gerald R. Ford International Airport Authority (USCOA Docket No. 24-1085) affirmed the federal district court’s ruling that some of the claims be moved back to state court, while parts involving third-party companies be moved to a federal court in South Carolina .
The claims were previously combined with third-party claims from the airport authority against the 3M Company, which kept the claims in federal court after being transferred from the Kent Circuit Court in May.
The state plaintiffs asked U.S. District Judge Jane Beckering of the Western District of Michigan to sever the claims raised in their underlying complaint from those raised by the airport authority against 3M Company, a third-party manufacturer of aqueous film-forming foams containing PFAS, which were used at the airport and caused contamination, as alleged in the initial complaint.
They also moved to remand their underlying claims to state court.
Beckering, in an order issued in August, granted the request to remand the state claims to the Kent Circuit Court, and severed the claims the airport authority filed against 3M. Those claims were to stay in federal court, Beckering ordered, and said she would continue to accept briefing from those parties.
The third-party case includes Tyco Fire Products and Chemguard Inc., in addition to 3M.
The airport authority appealed the ruling, to which Siler and his colleagues on the 6th Circuit panel agreed the case belonged in state court.
“Here, the Federal Aviation Administration’s oversight of the Airport Authority is comparable to the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation in (standing precedent), representing a typical regulatory relationship rather than a deputization of federal duties,” Siler wrote. “The FAA’s regulations apply to all airports seeking certification under Part 139. The Airport Authority’s compliance with these regulations constitutes adherence to a regulatory scheme applicable industry-wide, not assistance to a federal officer in carrying out a federal duty. Therefore, mere compliance with FAA regulations does not establish that the Airport Authority was ‘acting under’ a federal officer.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
