The Merrillville Conservancy District, et al. v. The Gary Sanitary District

Summary

The court grants the plaintiffs’ motion to remand an Indiana-law mandamus action to state court, holding that the petition does not present a federal question and that an anticipated federal defense based on a Clean Water Act consent decree cannot support removal. The court denies the plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees because the removal was not objectively unreasonable.

Holdings

1. The federal court lacked federal-question jurisdiction because the petition asserted only a state-law mandamus claim under Indiana Code § 34-27-3-1.
2. Removal was improper because a federal defense, including an anticipated defense based on a federal consent decree, does not create federal-question jurisdiction, and a state-law claim does not become federal merely because it affects a federal consent decree.
3. Plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney's fees because they did not show that the removal lacked an objectively reasonable basis or that unusual circumstances justified an award.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the federal court had subject matter jurisdiction over the state-law mandamus action removed from state court.
2. Whether the anticipated federal defense based on a Clean Water Act consent decree supported removal under federal-question jurisdiction.
3. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) after obtaining remand.

Disposition

remanded