Vermont v. 3M Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · August 19, 2025 · No. 24-1250-cv

Summary

This Second Circuit opinion addresses whether a defendant's notice of removal to federal court under the federal officer removal statute was timely filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). The district court had remanded the case to state court, concluding that the plaintiff's correspondence provided sufficient information to ascertain removability, thereby starting the thirty-day removal clock. The appellate court reversed, holding that the plaintiff's email and attached environmental agency letter did not explicitly disclose the military specification basis for removal, meaning the defendant could not have ascertained removability until after conducting its own investigation. The case is remanded for further proceedings on the merits of the federal officer removal jurisdiction claim.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Writing for the Court
Cabrane; Lohier; Sullivan
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decision date
August 19, 2025
Docket number
24-1250-cv
Procedural posture
State of Vermont sued 3M in state court; 3M removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §1442(a)(1); District of Vermont remanded for untimely removal; Second Circuit vacated remand and remanded for further proceedings.
Standard of review
de novo
Precedential value
published
Parties
3M Company v. State of Vermont
Disposition
vacated

Topics

subject matter jurisdictionstatutory interpretationappellate procedurecivil procedure

Practice areas

environmental lawcivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. When may a defendant first "ascertain" that a case is removable under 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(3) for federal officer removal?

Holdings

  1. The thirty‑day removal clock does not begin to run until the defendant receives a paper that provides enough information to discover with certainty that the case is removable; the DEC letter and Vermont’s email did not satisfy that requirement, so 3M’s notice of removal was timely.

Key quotations

We conclude that Vermont’s correspondence did not contain information from which removability under the federal officer removal statute could be ascertained, and therefore that 3M’s notice of removal was timely.

Factual background

Vermont alleged that 3M's production of per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contaminated the Rutland City landfill and the company's Rutland manufacturing facility. In October 2023 the Vermont DEC notified 3M that it was a potentially responsible party and that waste from the facility had impacted groundwater. The DEC letter was forwarded to 3M in early November 2023. After investigating, 3M determined it had manufactured copper‑clad laminates for military specifications at the facility and removed the case to federal court on January 3, 2024.

Procedural history

The State filed suit in Vermont state court alleging PFAS contamination. 3M removed the case to federal court invoking the federal officer removal statute. The district court found the removal untimely under §1446(b)(3) and remanded. The Second Circuit reviewed de novo and held the removal was timely, vacating and remanding the district court’s order.

Remand instructions

Remand to the United States District Court for the District of Vermont for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…