`
`Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 1 of 35 PageID 1Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 1 of 35 PageID 1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AMARILLO DIVISION
`
`LADARIUS JOHNSON; IRMA
`LOPEZ; PEDRO LOPEZ; TERRY
`BRACEY; ROSHAWN POLITE;
`BRANDI WEST; and BRITTNY
`ARRIETA,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`TYSON FOODS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT TYSON FOODS, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`Defendant Tyson Foods, Inc. (“Tyson”) removes this civil action under 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1441, 1442, and 1446. This Court has subject matter jurisdic-
`tion, and the case is removable because:
`(1)
`Complete diversity of citizenship exists, and the amount in con-
`troversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interests and
`costs (28 U.S.C. § 1332);
`Plaintiffs’ Original Petition (“Petition”) challenges actions taken
`by Tyson at the direction of a federal officer, for which Tyson will
`have a colorable federal defense (28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)); and
`The Petition raises substantial and disputed issues of federal law
`related to national emergency declarations, federal critical infra-
`structure designations, and the Defense Production Act that must
`be decided by a federal forum (28 U.S.C. § 1331).
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 2 of 35 PageID 2Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 2 of 35 PageID 2
`
`
`
`Removal is timely. Tyson was served with the Petition on July 20, 2021, and
`this Notice is being filed within 30 days thereof. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1); Murphy
`Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999).
`BACKGROUND
`This case is brought by seven individuals who allege that they worked at a
`Tyson meat-processing facility; that they contracted COVID-19 at work; and that
`they were harmed by the disease. But Plaintiffs’ allegations—including allegations of
`willful misconduct—are inaccurate and incorrect, and Tyson vigorously disputes
`Plaintiffs’ claim. Tyson has worked from the beginning of the pandemic to follow fed-
`eral workplace guidelines and has invested millions of dollars to provide employees
`with safety and risk-mitigation equipment. Tyson’s efforts to protect its workers
`while continuing to supply Americans with food continue to this day.
`Removal is proper because complete diversity exists, and the amount in con-
`troversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Additionally, as recently
`confirmed by both the Northern and Eastern Districts of Texas in cases involving
`materially identical issues, removal is also proper because this case seeks to counter-
`mand federal directions Tyson received to assist the federal government in its efforts
`to ensure that the greatest national health crisis in a century would not also spiral
`into a national food shortage. See Wazelle v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 2:20-CV-203-Z,
`2021 WL 2637335 (N.D. Tex. June 25, 2021); Fields v. Brown, No. 6:20-cv-00475, 2021
`WL 510620 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2021).1
`
`
`1 One court in the Eastern District acknowledged the rulings in Fields and Wazelle
`but reached a different result in Glenn v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 9:20-CV-184 (E.D.
`Tex. Aug. 12, 2021). But that decision does not change the analysis or result here, for
`several reasons. First and foremost, diversity jurisdiction was not asserted or ad-
`dressed as a ground for removal in Glenn. Because removal for diversity under 28
`U.S.C. § 1332 is undeniably proper, the analysis need not reach the federal officer or
`federal question arguments. However, defendant believes the well-reasoned decisions
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 3 of 35 PageID 3Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 3 of 35 PageID 3
`
`
`
`ARGUMENT
`This Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
`I.
`Removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
`
`The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
`
`[See Pet. ¶ 28 (“Plaintiffs affirmatively state that they seek damages in excess of
`$1,000,000 . . . .”)]
`
`Complete diversity exists. Plaintiffs are citizens of Texas. [Pet. ¶¶ 6-12] Tyson
`Foods, Inc. is a corporation. For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation
`is a citizen of “every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of
`the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1332(c)(1). Tyson is incorporated under the laws of Delaware and has its principal
`place of business in Arkansas. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, it is therefore a
`citizen of both Delaware and Arkansas. Because Plaintiffs are citizens of Texas, while
`Tyson is a citizen of Delaware and Arkansas, complete diversity exists. Removal is
`thus proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.2
`
`Additionally, Removal is also proper on the independent bases described below.
`II.
`Federal officer removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).
`Under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), a civil action may be removed to federal court if
`
`the action is asserted against a person acting under the direction of a federal officer:
`
`
`of the Fields and Wazelle courts confirming federal officer jurisdiction should control
`if the court finds it needs to consider that issue.
`2 As the named Defendant, Tyson Foods, Inc. timely removes this matter to federal
`court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1441, 1442, and 1446. However, Tyson
`Fresh Meats, Inc. is the entity that employed Plaintiffs. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. is
`incorporated under the laws of Delaware, and its principal place of business is in
`South Dakota. Thus, in the event that Plaintiffs amend their pleadings to name the
`Tyson entity that employed them, complete diversity will also exist between Tyson
`Fresh Meats, Inc. and Plaintiffs.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 4 of 35 PageID 4Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 4 of 35 PageID 4
`
`
`
`A civil action . . . that is against or directed to any of the following
`may be removed . . . :
`(1) The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any
`person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any
`agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating
`to any act under color of such office . . . .
`28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) (emphasis added).
`Here, federal officer removal is proper because (1) Tyson “acted pursuant to a
`federal officer’s directions,” (2) “the charged conduct is connected or associated with
`an act pursuant to a federal officer’s directions,” (3) Tyson has “a colorable federal
`defense,” and (4) Tyson “is a ‘person’ within the meaning of the statute.” Latiolais v.
`Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 951 F.3d 286, 296 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc); see also Wazelle,
`2021 WL 2637335; Fields, 2021 WL 510620.
`
`Federal Direction. On March 13, 2020, the President “proclaim[ed] that the
`COVID-19 outbreak in the United States constitutes a national emergency, beginning
`March 1, 2020.”3 The federal government proceeded to devote significant effort to
`combating the pandemic and its potentially catastrophic effects, enlisting both public
`and private entities in its efforts to ensure that the rapid spread of the disease would
`not disrupt the nation’s critical infrastructure. A particular focus of that effort was
`the protection of the nation’s food supply.
`
`This “critical infrastructure” designation derives from the Critical Infrastruc-
`ture Protection Act passed after 9/11, see 42 U.S.C. § 5195c(e), which instructed the
`U.S. Department of Homeland Security to develop plans to protect designated “criti-
`cal infrastructure” in the event of future disasters. “Food and Agriculture” is one of
`the sixteen recognized “sectors” of critical infrastructure and is subject to a 2013 Pres-
`idential Policy Directive intended to “advance[] a national unity of effort to
`
`3 https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-declaring-
`national-emergency-concerning-novel-coronavirus-disease-covid-19-outbreak/
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 5 of 35 PageID 5Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 5 of 35 PageID 5
`
`
`
`strengthen and maintain secure, functioning, and resilient critical infrastructure.”4
`Coordinating protection of the Food and Agriculture Sector has been assigned to the
`U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, which have an
`extensive plan5 “to protect against a disruption anywhere in the food system that
`would pose a serious threat to public health, safety, welfare, or to the national econ-
`omy.”6
`
`The Defense Production Act (“DPA”), 50 U.S.C. § 4501 et seq., provides the fed-
`eral government with additional authority. The DPA grants the President authority
`to “control the general distribution of any material in the civilian market” that the
`President deems “a scarce and critical material to the national defense.” Id. § 4511(b).
`The Critical Infrastructure Protection Act expressly cross-references the DPA and
`characterizes the emergency preparedness activities that both statutes contemplate
`as part of the “national defense.” See 42 U.S.C. § 5195a(b). The statutes vest the Pres-
`ident with ample authority to direct the operation of critical infrastructure like the
`distribution of meat and poultry to protect the national food chain—a point that the
`President underscored shortly after declaring a national emergency. See Remarks by
`President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Members of the Coronavirus Task Force
`in Press Briefing, The White House (Mar. 18, 2020), https://bit.ly/2Nh91XZ (“We’ll be
`invoking the Defense Production Act, just in case we need it.”).
`
`From the time of President Trump’s disaster declaration on March 13, Tyson
`was in close contact with federal officials regarding continued operations as critical
`infrastructure and acting at the direction of those officials. For example, on March 15
`
`
`4 https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/presidential-pol-
`icy-directive-critical-infrastructure-security-and-resil
`5 https://www.cisa.gov/critical-infrastructure-sectors
`6 https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/nipp-ssp-food-ag-2015-508.pdf
`at 13.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 6 of 35 PageID 6Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 6 of 35 PageID 6
`
`
`
`(just two days after declaring a national emergency), in response to significant hoard-
`ing of food and other items, the President personally met with Tyson and other food
`industry companies to convey that they would thereafter be “working hand-in-hand
`with the federal government” to ensure that “food and essentials are constantly avail-
`able,” and that food suppliers would “work 24 hours around the clock” to achieve that
`goal.7
`
`The next day, on March 16, the President reinforced this obligation to aid the
`federal government by issuing “Coronavirus Guidelines” emphasizing that employees
`in “critical infrastructure industr[ies]”—including companies like Tyson that are es-
`sential to maintaining food-supply chains and ensuring the continued health and
`safety of all Americans—have a “special responsibility” and “should follow CDC guid-
`ance to protect [employees’] health at work.” Exec. Office of Pres., The President’s
`Coronavirus Guidelines for America at 2 (Mar. 16, 2020).8
`Over the next weeks, Tyson was in frequent contact with federal officers re-
`garding the best way to safely continue operations, in particular with the Department
`of Agriculture’s Food Safety Inspection Service (“FSIS”). In fact, FSIS employees were
`on-site at Tyson’s facilities, and Tyson’s employees carried letters identifying them
`as “critical infrastructure” workers, so that those employees could explain their ex-
`emption from local lockdowns should any authorities question them.
`Federal officials also continued to emphasize the need for companies in the
`Food and Agriculture Sector to keep operating pursuant to unified, federal guidance.
`For example, in an April 7 statement, Vice President Pence stressed that “we need
`[food industry workers] to continue, as a part of what we call our critical
`
`
`7 https://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/15621-trump-meets-with-food-com-
`pany-leaders
`8 https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/03.16.20_coro-
`navirus-guidance_8.5x11_315PM.pdf
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 7 of 35 PageID 7Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 7 of 35 PageID 7
`
`
`
`infrastructure, to show up and do your job and know that we’re going to continue to
`work tirelessly in working with all of your companies to make sure that that work-
`place is safe.”9 Congress even appropriated supplemental funding to FSIS to accom-
`modate the continued presence of FSIS at facilities, including Tyson’s facilities, dur-
`ing the pandemic. The Department of Agriculture and Federal Emergency Manage-
`ment Agency (“FEMA”) worked to provide Tyson and federal workers at Tyson’s fa-
`cilities with the necessary personal protective equipment to continue to operate, and
`the Department of Transportation provided special status for transportation workers,
`including Tyson truck drivers delivering meat and poultry, to operate during the pan-
`demic and provide much needed food to restock stores during the emergency.
`But notwithstanding the close collaboration between Tyson and federal offi-
`cials to safely continue operations, state and local officials began asserting contradic-
`tory authority with respect to meat and poultry processing facilities. Those state ac-
`tions led to an Executive Order re-emphasizing federal supremacy with respect to
`meat and poultry facilities. On April 28, President Trump expressly invoked his au-
`thority under the Defense Production Act (“DPA”) and again directed that it was fed-
`eral policy that meat and poultry processing companies continue operating subject to
`the supervision of the Secretary of Agriculture. See Food Supply Chain Resources, 85
`Fed. Reg. at 26,313, 2020 WL 2060381, at *1. The executive order states in relevant
`part:
`
`It is important that processors of beef, pork, and poultry (“meat
`and poultry”) in the food supply chain continue operating and
`fulfilling orders to ensure a continued supply of protein for
`Americans. . . . [R]ecent actions in some States have led to the
`complete closure of some large processing facilities.
`
`
`9 https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-
`trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-april-7-
`2020/
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 8 of 35 PageID 8Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 8 of 35 PageID 8
`
`
`
`*
`*
`*
`Such closures threaten the continued functioning of the na-
`tional meat and poultry supply chain, undermining critical infra-
`structure during the national emergency.
`*
`*
`*
`[T]he Secretary of Agriculture shall take all appropriate action
`. . . to ensure that meat and poultry processors continue
`operations consistent with the guidance for their operations
`jointly issued by the CDC and OSHA.
`
`Id. (emphases added).
`
`Consistent with the Food Supply Chain Resources executive order and the
`prior directives, the Secretary of Agriculture then promptly issued two letters: one to
`meat and poultry processing companies directing them to continue operating pursu-
`ant to the federal directives, and one to state and local officials across the nation
`reiterating their obligation to work with the Secretary to ensure meat and poultry
`processing companies’ compliance with federal directives. See U.S. Dep’t of Agricul-
`ture, Press Release No. 0243.20 (May 6, 2020) (announcing that the Secretary had
`issued a “Letter to Governors” and “Letter to Stakeholders”).10 The Secretary’s Letter
`to Stakeholders again emphasized that the “Nation’s meat and poultry processing
`facilities and workers play an integral role in the continuity of our food supply chain.”
`U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, Letter to Stakeholders (May 5, 2020).11
`
`The U.S. Department of Agriculture also entered into a Memorandum of Un-
`derstanding with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) setting forth the
`
`
`10 https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2020/05/06/secretary-perdue-issues-
`letters-meat-packing-expectations
`11 Letter from Sonny Perdue, Sec’y of Agric., Re: Executive Order 13917 Delegating
`Authority Under the Defense Production Act with Respect to the Food Supply Chain
`Resources During the National Emergency Caused by the Outbreak of COVID-19
`(May 5, 2020).
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 9 of 35 PageID 9Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 9 of 35 PageID 9
`
`
`
`respective roles of each agency in utilizing the DPA to regulate food producers during
`the COVID-19 outbreak. See Memorandum of Understanding Between FDA and
`USDA Regarding the Potential Use of the Defense Production Act with Regard to FDA-
`Regulated Food During the COVID-19 Pandemic (May 18, 2020).12 Notably, the agree-
`ment reiterated that “actions by States or localities could lead to the closure of food
`resource facilities,” and such closures “could threaten the continued functioning of
`the national food supply chain, undermining critical infrastructure during the na-
`tional emergency.” Id. at 1-2.
`Accordingly, Tyson was operating its facilities—including the Amarillo facil-
`ity—“under the direction of multiple federal agencies” as part of the federal “critical-
`infrastructure designation” “since [the declaration of a national emergency on]
`March 13, 2020,” Fields, 2021 WL 510620, at *3 & n.1, and Tyson “exhibited ‘an effort
`to help assist, or carry out, the duties and tasks of the federal superior.’” Wazelle,
`2021 WL 2637335, at *4 (quoting Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., 551 U.S. 142, 152
`(2007)). As such, Tyson was “acting under” the direction of a federal officer, 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1442(a)(1), and “helping the Government to produce an item that it needs” for the
`national defense, Watson, 551 U.S. at 153; see also Camacho v. Autoridad de Telefonos
`de Puerto Rico, 868 F.2d 482, 486-87 (1st Cir. 1989) (holding that “the reach of section
`1442(a)(1) extends to private persons . . . who act under the direction of federal offic-
`ers,” including companies ordered to “facilitate” or “offer[] technical assistance” to
`federal agents exercising statutory authority).
`Indeed, it is well established that private providers to the government of mili-
`tary products (see, e.g., Latiolais, 951 F.3d at 289-90; Papp v. Fore-Kast Sales Co., 842
`F.3d 805, 813 (3d Cir. 2016)) or health benefits (see, e.g., St. Charles Surgical Hosp.,
`L.L.C. v. La. Health Serv. & Indem. Co., 935 F.3d 352, 354 (5th Cir. 2019)) can invoke
`
`
`12 https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/mou-between-fda-usda-dpa.pdf
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 10 of 35 PageID 10Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 10 of 35 PageID 10
`
`
`
`federal officer removal. Here, Tyson was acting at the direction of, and hand-in-hand
`with, federal officers in a time of emergency to provide the food security that the gov-
`ernment recognized it could not accomplish alone. See, e.g., Ruppel v. CBS Corp., 701
`F.3d 1176, 1181 (7th Cir. 2012) (explaining that “the Supreme Court has approved
`removal” in cases where “defendants work[ed] hand-in-hand with the federal govern-
`ment to achieve a task that furthers an end of the federal government”).
`And with respect to the DPA in particular, the President made clear on
`March 24 that companies were acting in the shadow of potential DPA orders: “The
`Defense Production Act is in full force, but haven’t had to use it because no one has
`said NO!”13 The Fifth Circuit has recognized that such dynamics amount to govern-
`ment orders and actions—that “the threat of mandatory powers would be used as a
`‘big stick’ to induce voluntary cooperation,” and that the DPA’s “broad authority” can
`be exercised through either “formal, published regulations” or “informal and indirect
`methods of securing compliance.” E. Air Lines, Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 532
`F.2d 957, 992-93, 998 (5th Cir. 1976). That is especially true in a time of emergency
`because “a cumbersome and inflexible administrative process is antithetical to the
`pressing necessities.” Id. at 998. Just like a private chauffeur enlisted by a federal
`officer to drive in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect, here Tyson was enlisted to carry
`out paramount government objectives in a fast-moving crisis. See Maryland v. Soper,
`270 U.S. 9, 30 (1926) (chauffeur acting under orders of federal officers had “the same
`right to the benefit of [federal-officer removal] as they”). In both cases, there is federal
`direction even though there is no time for a formal deputization. Indeed, the Presi-
`dent formally invoked the DPA on April 28 only in response to state and local govern-
`ments’ failure to heed the Executive Branch’s earlier directives to meat and poultry
`
`
`13 Doina Chiacu, Trump Administration Unclear over Emergency Production Measure
`to Combat Coronavirus, Reuters (March 24, 2020), http://reut.rs/3rS3MN5.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 11 of 35 PageID 11Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 11 of 35 PageID 11
`
`
`
`processors. Thus, “[t]o the extent some of the federal direction may have been more
`‘informal,’ including emails, phone calls, and weekly meetings with FSIS and other
`federal officials regarding how to maintain operations safely, that informality does
`not change the fact that [Tyson was] still receiving and following federal direction.”
`Wazelle, 2021 WL 2637335, at *4 n.3.
`Consistent with the finding of federal officer removal in Winters v. Diamond
`Shamrock Chemical Co., 149 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. 1998), holding modified by Latiolais,
`951 F.3d 286, the federal government here (1) provided “detailed specifications” gov-
`erning Tyson’s ongoing operations—through the federal direction that the CDC and
`OSHA guidelines would govern operations, and promulgation of exceedingly detailed
`guidelines; and (2) exercised “on-going supervision” of those operations through mul-
`tiple federal officials, id. at 399-400, including the Secretary of Agriculture, who was
`delegated power by the Department of Homeland Security to preserve the Food and
`Agriculture Sector during the pandemic and by the President to “take all appropriate
`action . . . to ensure that meat and poultry processors continue operations consistent
`with the guidance for their operations jointly issued by the CDC and OSHA.” 85 Fed.
`Reg. at 26,313, 2020 WL 2060381, at *1. The Petition challenges Tyson’s failure to
`stop work at the Amarillo facility and the various measures that were taken at the
`facility. [See, e.g., Pet. ¶¶ 15 (alleging “[d]espite the stay-at-home order [issued by the
`Governor of Texas], Plaintiffs were required to continue working at the [Amarillo fa-
`cility]”), 16 (alleging Tyson “failed to take adequate precautions to protect the work-
`ers” at the facility), 21(a)-(i)] But those alleged actions were taken pursuant to the
`authority, orders, detailed regulation, and supervision of federal officers, up to and
`including the President and Vice President. Tyson was therefore “acting under” fed-
`eral officers, and is entitled to have this case heard in federal court. 28 U.S.C. §
`1442(a)(1); Fields, 2021 WL 510620, at *3 (“[B]ased on the critical-infrastructure des-
`ignation, [Tyson was] ‘acting under’ the directions of federal officials when the federal
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 12 of 35 PageID 12Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 12 of 35 PageID 12
`
`
`
`government announced a national emergency on March 13.”); Wazelle, 2021 WL
`2637335, at *5 (“[Tyson was] ‘acting under’ the directions of federal officials” from the
`time of the national emergency declaration.).
`Connection or Association. Following the text of 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), it suf-
`fices if the lawsuit targets actions Tyson took “relating to” the directions of federal
`officers, which requires that Plaintiffs’ allegations be “connected or associated with”
`Tyson’s actions taken “pursuant to a federal officer’s directions.” See Latiolais, 951
`F.3d at 296. Here, there is a direct connection between the Petition’s allegations and
`the actions Tyson took at the direction of federal officers. See Wazelle, 2021 WL
`2637335, at *5; Fields, 2021 WL 510620, at *4.
`
`As noted above, the Petition alleges that Tyson is liable in tort for allowing
`employees to continue working given the supposedly high risk of them contracting
`COVID-19 (e.g., Pet. ¶¶ 15-16), even though those facilities were operating as critical
`infrastructure under federal directions during a national emergency. Likewise, the
`Petition challenges specific measures that Tyson adopted or allegedly failed to adopt
`in response to the coronavirus. [See, e.g., Pet. ¶ 21(a)-(i)] But the measures that Tyson
`took were at the direction of federal officers to continue safe operations as critical
`infrastructure during a national emergency. Any dispute that Tyson should have op-
`erated differently from the federal directions it received in a national emergency
`should be for the “federal—not state—courts to answer.” Isaacson v. Dow Chem. Co.,
`517 F.3d 129, 138 (2d Cir. 2008) (federal courts must resolve “whether the challenged
`act was outside the scope of Defendants’ official duties, or whether it was specifically
`directed by the federal Government”) (citing Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402,
`409 (1969)).
`
`Colorable Federal Defenses. Tyson has at least the following federal defenses
`to the claim in the Petition.
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 13 of 35 PageID 13Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 13 of 35 PageID 13
`
`
`
` Express preemption under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (“FMIA”).
`The FMIA’s express preemption clause preempts state-law requirements
`that are “in addition to” or “different than” the rigorous and extensive fed-
`eral requirements under the statute. See 21 U.S.C. § 678; see also, e.g., 9
`C.F.R. § 416.5(c) (setting federal requirements under the FMIA regarding
`cleanliness, protective attire, and “[d]isease control”). As construed by the
`Supreme Court, “[t]he FMIA’s preemption clause sweeps widely” and “pre-
`vents a State from imposing any additional or different—even if non-con-
`flicting—requirements that fall within the scope of the Act.” Nat’l Meat
`Ass’n v. Harris, 565 U.S. 452, 459-60 (2012). Plaintiffs here would use state
`tort law to impose additional and different requirements. See Wazelle, 2021
`WL 2637335, at *2-3 (holding that Tyson set forth a colorable federal de-
`fense under the FMIA because “this case arose in the unique context of a
`global pandemic,” and “[w]orkplace conditions and procedures related to
`disease prevention implicate food safety, which could bring Plaintiffs’
`claims under the ambit of the FMIA”); Fields, 2021 WL 510620, at *5 (hold-
`ing that Tyson “put forth a colorable federal defense under the [substan-
`tially similar preemption provision of the Poultry Products Inspection Act],
`thereby satisfying the federal officer removal test laid out in Latiolais”).
` Preemption and immunity under the DPA and the extensive federal di-
`rectives. Plaintiffs’ claim is also preempted by the DPA and the extensive
`federal supervision and control under which Tyson was operating. Congress
`enacted the DPA to preserve “the security of the United States” by ensuring
`“the ability of the domestic industrial base to supply materials and services
`for the national defense and to prepare for and respond to . . . natural or
`man-caused disasters,” and in particular to “provide for the protection and
`restoration of domestic critical infrastructure operations under emergency
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 14 of 35 PageID 14Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 14 of 35 PageID 14
`
`
`
`conditions.” 50 U.S.C. § 4502(a)(1), (a)(2)(C). The DPA grants the President
`wide latitude to “take appropriate steps to maintain and enhance the do-
`mestic industrial base,” id. § 4502(a)(4), including “to allocate materials,
`services, and facilities in such manner, upon such conditions, and to such
`extent as he shall deem necessary or appropriate” during a national emer-
`gency, id. § 4511(a). This broad grant of authority preempts any attempt by
`a state to impose its own regulations on “domestic critical infrastructure”
`industries when the President has done so under the DPA, id.
`§ 4502(a)(2)(C); see also Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S.
`363, 376 (2000), and provides an express defense against suits like this for
`actions taken in compliance with orders issued under the DPA, 50 U.S.C.
`§ 4557. The Petition here seeks to impose state regulation that conflicts
`with the President’s express directives under the DPA requiring Tyson to
`assist the nation during a national disaster by (1) continuing to operate
`(2) pursuant to federal operational requirements.
`Tyson is a “person.” Section 1442(a)(1) applies to corporations. See Latiolais,
`
`951 F.3d at 291; Jacks v. Meridian Res. Co., 701 F.3d 1224, 1230 n.3 (8th Cir. 2012)
`(citing Watson, 551 U.S. at 152-53) (“[T]he ‘person’ contemplated by the federal officer
`removal statute includes corporations.”).
`III. The Court also has federal question jurisdiction.
`
`This case is properly removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because it “aris[es] un-
`der” federal law. See Bd. of Comm’rs of Se. La. Flood Prot. Auth.-E. v. Tenn. Gas
`Pipeline Co., 850 F.3d 714, 721-22 (5th Cir. 2017); Wullschleger v. Royal Canin
`U.S.A., Inc., 953 F.3d 519, 521 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 621 (2020). Although
`Plaintiffs’ causes of action are styled as state-law claims, this Court has federal ques-
`tion jurisdiction because the claims (1) “necessarily” raise an issue of federal law that
`is (2) “actually disputed” and (3) “substantial,” and (4) “which a federal forum may
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 15 of 35 PageID 15Case 2:21-cv-00156-Z Document 1 Filed 08/13/21 Page 15 of 35 PageID 15
`
`
`
`entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and
`state judicial responsibilities.” Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g &
`Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005); see also Wullschleger, 953 F.3d at 521 (removal is
`proper where claim pleaded under state law “implicat[es] a disputed and substantial
`federal issue”).
`
`Federal issues are necessarily raised. The Petition necessarily raises multi-
`ple, substantial federal issues. The entire thrust of the Petition is that Tyson should
`not have complied with express federal directives related to the national defense—
`i.e., should have shut down or slowed production (e.g., Pet. ¶¶ 15-16, 21(b), 21(i));
`should have taken more or different measures than were mandated by the federal
`directives (e.g., id. ¶¶ 16, 21(c)-(d) & (f)-(i)); or failed to comply with federal law by
`allegedly failing to take certain precautions (e.g., id. ¶ 21(e)). These issues directly
`implicate the “uniquely federal interest” in “civil liabilities” arising from the govern-
`ment’s defense priorities determinations, Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487
`U.S. 500, 505-07 (1988), and none of these issues can “be resolved without a determi-
`nation” and “construction of [the] federal law[s]” under which Tyson was operating.
`Bd. of Comm’rs of Se. La., 850 F.3d at 723.
`
`To the contrary, these federal issues are plainly and necessarily raised by the
`Petition (e.g., Pet. ¶ 21(e) (alleging Tyson “[f]ailed to follow guidelines set forth by the
`. . . CDC”)), and they permeate every aspect of Plaintiffs’ claim—from the measures
`Tyson allegedly adopted or failed to adopt (e.g., id. ¶ 21(c)–(e) (challenging Tyson’s
`provision of PPE, implementation of social distancing, and failure to follow CDC
`guidelines)), to Tyson’s con