## Facts

- Surface and royalty interest owners in the West Hastings Oil Field in Texas sued several oil companies, alleging property contamination from oil and gas operations.
- The plaintiffs asserted state-law claims, including nuisance, trespass, negligence, and breach of contract.
- In the original state-court petitions, plaintiffs alleged defendants violated “not only State law but also Federal law,” without identifying any federal statute or federal cause of action.
- Defendants removed the actions to federal court, asserting federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441.
- Plaintiffs later responded in discovery that they believed federal statutes such as CERCLA and the Oil Pollution Act might apply, but amended complaints did not plead any federal statutory cause of action; one amendment removed the explicit “federal law” reference.
- A joint pretrial order mentioned CERCLA and the Oil Pollution Act only as benchmarks for calculating damages, not as bases for liability.
- After trial on state-law claims, the district court ordered an environmental study and issued interim relief, including a preliminary injunction and an interim award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
- Defendants appealed, and the court of appeals addressed whether the federal courts ever had subject-matter jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether a state-court complaint that generally references violations of “federal law,” without pleading a specific federal cause of action, provides federal-question jurisdiction supporting removal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441.
2. Whether later references to federal statutes in discovery responses or a pretrial order—used only to measure damages—can supply or retroactively create federal-question jurisdiction.
3. What remedy is required when a removed case proceeds in federal court without subject-matter jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit held the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the pleadings did not assert any claim arising under federal law.
- The court ruled removal was improper under the well-pleaded complaint rule.
- The court ordered the case remanded to Texas state court.
- The court vacated the district court’s interim orders, including injunctive and fee/cost orders, because a federal court without jurisdiction cannot issue binding relief.

## Legal Principles

- Federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 must appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.
- A generic reference to “federal law,” without identifying and asserting a federal cause of action, does not confer federal-question jurisdiction.
- Mentioning federal statutes outside the pleadings (e.g., in discovery or a pretrial order), or invoking them solely as damage measures, does not establish jurisdiction absent a pleaded federal claim.
- Supplemental (pendent) jurisdiction cannot support a removed action when no properly pleaded federal claim exists to anchor federal jurisdiction.
- When subject-matter jurisdiction is absent, the proper remedy is vacatur of federal orders and remand to state court.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit concluded that removal based on an unspecified allegation of “federal law” was unauthorized because plaintiffs never pleaded a federal cause of action; later reliance on federal statutes only to frame damages did not cure the defect, requiring vacatur of the federal court’s orders and remand to state court.


Avitts v. Amoco Prod. Co., 53 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 1995)