`
`No. 22-10061
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
`_________________________________________________
`Jamie Wazelle; Tay Aung; Elizabeth Casel; Manivanh
`Chanthanakhone; Manuel Contreras, et al,
`Plaintiffs–Appellants,
`
`v.
`
`Tyson Foods, Incorporated; Ernesto Sanchez;
`Kevin Kinikin; Farren Fernandez,
`Defendants–Appellees.
`________________________________________________
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division
`No. 2:20-CV-203, Hon. Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, Presiding Judge
`________________________________________________
`
`OPENING BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS–APPELLANTS
`________________________________________________
`
`Kurt B. Arnold
`Andrew R. Gould
` Counsel of Record
`Brian M. Christensen
`ARNOLD & ITKIN LLP
`6009 Memorial Drive
`Houston, Texas 77007
`(713) 222-3800 Telephone
`(713) 222-3850 Facsimile
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs–Appellants
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 22-10061 Document: 00516307533 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2022
`
`Appellees
`
`Tyson Foods, Incorporated
`Ernesto Sanchez
`Kevin Kinikin
`Farren Fernandez
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
`The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed
`persons and entities as described in the fourth sentence of Rule 28.2.1 have
`an interest in the outcome of this case. These representations are made in
`order that the judges of this Court may evaluate possible disqualification or
`recusal.
`Appellants
`
`Jamie Wazelle
`Tay Aung
`Elizabeth Casel
`Manivanh Chanthanakhone
`Manuel Contreras
`Rebeca Corral
`Patricia Cossey
`Jozette Escoto
`Cruz Garcia, Sr.
`Sheryl Gardner
`Denetria Gonzalez
`Rene Gutierrez
`Brian Hall
`Brandon Ivory
`Nini Aye Kayahphu
`Ko Latt
`Armando Lira
`Derestia Lira
`Mya Lira
`Valarie Lira
`Aung Moe
`Biak Morris
`Maleak Rector
`Maricela Rios
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case: 22-10061 Document: 00516307533 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/04/2022
`
`Natasha Rios
`Guadalupe Rondan
`Miguel Rondan
`Javier Rubio
`Ignacio Ruiz
`Sylvia Ruiz
`Mitchell Sanchez
`Billy Shaw
`Kyaw Soe
`Nyein Soe
`Thida Soe
`Breana Solis
`Ladonna Trull
`Tin Soe
`Danny Woodall
`Carlos Corral
`Jonathan Haws
`Counsel for Appellants
`
`Kurt B. Arnold
`Andrew R. Gould
`Brian M. Christensen
`Caj Boatright
`Claire Elizabeth Traver
`Joseph F. McGowin
`Roland Thomas Christensen
`ARNOLD & ITKIN LLP
`6009 Memorial Drive
`Houston, TX 77007
`
`Timothy D. Newsom
`LAW OFFICES OF FRANK L. BRANSON, PC
`4514 Cole Avenue
`Suite 1800
`Dallas, TX 75205
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Appellees
`
`Christopher S. Coleman
`Jessica Everett-Garcia
`PERKINS COIE LLP - PHOENIX
`2901 N Central Avenue
`Suite 2000
`Phoenix, AZ 85012-2786
`
`Mary Z. Gaston
`PERKINS COIE LLP - SEATTLE
`1201 Third Avenue, 49th Floor
`Seattle, WA 98101-3099
`
`Paul D. Clement
`Erin E. Murphy
`C. Harker Rhodes IV
`Andrea R. Butler
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case: 22-10061 Document: 00516307533 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/04/2022
`
`Joe L. Lovell
`LOVELL LOVELL ISERN & FARABOUGH
`Eagle Centre Building
`112 W 8th Ave Suite 1000
`Amarillo, TX 79101
`
`Kelly D. Utsinger
`Christopher Jason Fenton
`Titiana Dixon Frausto
`UNDERWOOD LAW FIRM PC
`500 S Taylor
`Suite 1200 LB 233
`PO Box 9158
`Amarillo, TX 79105
`
`District Judge
`Matthew J. Kacsmaryk
`Magistrate Judge
`Lee Ann Reno
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`s/ Andrew R. Gould
`Andrew R. Gould
`Attorney of Record for Plaintiffs–
`Appellants
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case: 22-10061 Document: 00516307533 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/04/2022
`
`STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
`Plaintiffs–Appellants respectfully request oral argument. Although this
`appeal involves several significant legal issues, the primary one concerns
`subject-matter jurisdiction. Among other questions, this Court must decide if
`the Federal Government’s mere encouragement to a company to continue
`operating during the beginning days of the COVID-19 pandemic gives rise to
`federal-officer-removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Oral
`argument would substantially assist this Court in resolving that threshold—
`and nationally important—jurisdictional issue.
`At the same time, Plaintiffs–Appellants note three related cases pending
`before this Court:
`1. Glenn v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 21-40622, consolidated with Chavez v.
`Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 21-11110: This consolidated appeal, which arises
`from the district courts’ grants of plaintiffs’ motions to remand, involves
`substantially similar jurisdictional issues (including federal-officer
`removal). That appeal is fully briefed, and a panel of this Court (Willett,
`Englehardt, Wilson, JJ.) will hear oral argument on May 10, 2022.
`
`2. Fields v. Brown, No. 21-40818: This appeal, which arises from the
`district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion to remand and its subsequent
`grant of defendants’ motion to dismiss, involves substantially similar
`jurisdictional and merits issues. Plaintiffs–Appellants filed their opening
`brief on March 9, 2022; Defendants–Appellees’ response brief is due on
`May 9.
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 22-10061 Document: 00516307533 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/04/2022
`
`3. Garcia v. Swift Beef Co., No. 22-10050: This appeal arises from the
`district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion to remand and its subsequent
`grant of defendants’ motion to dismiss. It involves jurisdictional and
`merits issues that are substantially like those at issue here. Plaintiffs–
`Appellants filed their opening brief on April 16, 2022; Defendants–
`Appellees’ response brief is due on June 15.
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Case: 22-10061 Document: 00516307533 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/04/2022
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Certificate of Interested Persons .................................................................. ii
`
`Statement regarding Oral Argument ............................................................ v
`
`Table of Authorities .................................................................................... xi
`
`Introduction ................................................................................................ 1
`
`Statement of Jurisdiction ............................................................................. 5
`
`Statement of the Issues ................................................................................ 6
`
`Statement of the Case ................................................................................. 7
`
`As a result of Defendants’ failure to institute protective measures,
`I.
`Plaintiffs were severely injured after they contracted COVID-19 at
`Tyson’s plant. ..................................................................................... 7
`
`II. The State and Federal Governments responded to the pandemic
`in various ways. ................................................................................. 8
`
`The State’s orders did not require Tyson to take
`A.
` any action. ............................................................................... 8
`The Federal Government’s response did not require Tyson
`to take any action beyond regulatory compliance. ..................... 9
`
`III. Procedural History ............................................................................ 17
`
`Plaintiffs sue in Texas state court. ........................................... 17
`A.
`
`Defendants remove to federal court. ....................................... 18
`B.
`
`All Defendants move to dismiss, while Plaintiffs move to
`C.
`remand. .................................................................................. 18
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`Case: 22-10061 Document: 00516307533 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/04/2022
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`The district court denies remand and dismisses Plaintiffs’
`claims against the Individual Defendants. ............................... 19
`The district court denies as moot Tyson’s motion to dismiss
`and grants Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend. .................... 20
`After Plaintiffs file their Second Amended Complaint, Tyson
`moves to dismiss. .................................................................... 20
`
`The district court grants Tyson’s motion to dismiss. ................. 21
`G.
`
`Summary of the Argument ........................................................................ 22
`
`Argument .................................................................................................. 27
`
`The district court erred in denying Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. ....... 27
`I.
`
`The standard of review is de novo. .......................................... 27
`A.
`
`Federal-officer-removal jurisdiction is improper. ..................... 27
`B.
`
`Tyson was not “acting under” a federal officer’s
`directions. .......................................................................... 28
`The “acting under” test requires a special relationship
`of subservience in which the private party acts under
`federal orders to carry out governmental tasks. .............. 29
`Federal designation of the food industry as critical
`infrastructure did not establish
`the
`“special
`relationship” necessary for “acting under.” ..................... 31
`Compliance with FSIS regulations and efforts to
`obtain personal protective equipment do not establish
`“acting under” a federal officer. ..................................... 35
`Even if the April 28 Executive Order is relevant, it
`imposed no orders or directives on Tyson. ..................... 36
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`viii
`
`
`
`Case: 22-10061 Document: 00516307533 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/04/2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`C.
`
`Threats of possible, future federal action did not
`authorize or require any present action under a
`federal official or agency. ............................................... 38
`Tyson did not establish the “acting under” element. ....... 40
`Defendants cannot establish that the charged conduct is
`connected or associated with an act taken pursuant to a
`federal officer’s directions. .................................................. 41
`Nor are Defendants’ federal defenses facially colorable,
`let alone meritorious. ......................................................... 42
`The FMIA does not preempt Plaintiffs’ claims because
`it does not govern worker safety. ................................... 42
`The DPA, the April 28 Executive Order, and “related
`federal directions” do not provide Tyson an
`affirmative defense......................................................... 47
`Tyson cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction. ............... 51
`C.
`The district court erred in granting Tyson’s motion to dismiss the
`Individual Defendants. ..................................................................... 53
`The standard of review is de novo. .......................................... 54
`A.
`Under longstanding Texas law, the Individual Defendants
`B.
`are liable for their own tortious acts. ....................................... 54
`Alternatively, Plaintiffs should have been granted an
`opportunity to amend their pleadings. .................................... 58
`
`III. The district court equally erred in granting Tyson’s motions to
`dismiss. ............................................................................................ 60
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`ix
`
`
`
`Case: 22-10061 Document: 00516307533 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/04/2022
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the
`under
`facts
`sufficient
`pleaded
`Plaintiffs
`Texas PLPA ............................................................................. 60
`Plaintiffs adequately pleaded causation under general
`pleading standards. ................................................................. 65
`Plaintiffs’ claims are not preempted under the FMIA. .............. 67
`Plaintiffs’ claims are not preempted under the DPA, the
`April 28 Executive Order, or other federal communications.
` ............................................................................................... 68
`
`Conclusion ................................................................................................ 69
`
`Certificate of Service ................................................................................. 70
`
`
`Certificate of Compliance .......................................................................... 71
`
`x
`
`
`
`Case: 22-10061 Document: 00516307533 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/04/2022
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Cases
`
`Agredano v. State Farm Lloyds,
`975 F.3d 504 (5th Cir. 2020) ........................................................... 64
`
`Anderson v. Hackett,
`646 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (S.D. Ill. 2009) ............................................... 48
`
`
`Bailey v. Monsanto Co.,
`176 F. Supp. 3d 853 (E.D. Mo. 2016) ............................................... 39
`
`Bd. of Com’rs of Se. La. Flood Prot. Auth. v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co.,
`850 F.3d 714 (5th Cir. 2017) ........................................................... 53
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ........................................................................ 64
`
`Beneficial Nat. Bank v. Anderson,
`539 U.S. 1 (2003) ............................................................................ 51
`
`Benson v. Russell’s Cuthand Creek Ranch, Ltd.,
`183 F. Supp. 3d 795 (E.D. Tex. 2016) ............................................. 42
`
`Box v. PetroTel, Inc.,
`— F.4th —, No. 21-10686, 2022 WL 1237603,
`(5th Cir. Apr. 27, 2022) ............................................................. 33, 35
`
`Buljic v. Tyson Foods, Inc.,
`22 F.4th 730 (8th Cir. 2021) ......................................................passim
`
`Caterpillar v. Williams,
`482 U.S. 386 (1987) ........................................................................ 51
`
`City of Walker v. Louisiana,
`877 F.3d 563 (5th Cir. 2017) ........................................................... 27
`
`xi
`
`
`
`Case: 22-10061 Document: 00516307533 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/04/2022
`
`Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.,
`532 F.2d 957 (5th Cir. 1976) .....................................................passim
`
`Fernandez v. Tyson Foods, Inc.,
`509 F. Supp. 3d 1064 (N.D. Iowa 2020) ........................................... 41
`
`Fidelitad, Inc. v. Insitu, Inc.,
`904 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2018) ......................................................... 31
`
`Figueroa v. Davis, 318 S.W.3d 53
` (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.) ............................... 67
`
`Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne,
`482 U.S. 1 (1987) ............................................................................ 44
`
`Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg.,
`545 U.S. 308 (2005) .................................................................. 52, 53
`
`Gunn v. Minton,
`568 U.S. 251 (2013) ....................................................................... 51
`
`Guzman v. Cordero,
`481 F. Supp. 2d 787 (W.D. Tex. 2007) ................................. 55, 56, 57
`
`Hercules, Inc. v. United States,
` 24 F.3d 188 (Fed. Cir. 1994) aff’d, 516 U.S. 417 (1996) ................. 47
`
`IntegraNet Physician Resource, Inc. v. Tex. Indep. Providers, L.L.C.,
`945 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 2019) ........................................................... 31
`
`In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig.,
`597 F. Supp. 740 (E.D.N.Y. 1984),
`aff’d, 818 F.2d 145 (2d Cir. 1987) .................................................... 47
`
`In re Butt,
`495 S.W.3d 455
`(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2016, no pet.) ....................................... 56
`
`
`xii
`
`
`
`Case: 22-10061 Document: 00516307533 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/04/2022
`
`Jackson v. Am. Bureau of Shipping,
`No. CV-H-20-109, 2020 WL 1743541,
`(S.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2020) ................................................................... 41
`
`JJJJ Walker, LLC v. Yollick,
` 447 S.W.3d 453
`(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied) ....................... 54
`
`Kantrow v. Celebrity Cruises Inc.,
`533 F. Supp. 3d 1203 (S.D. Fla. 2021) ............................................ 66
`
`Lake v. Ohana Mil. Communities, LLC,
`14 F.4th 993 (9th Cir. 2021) ............................................................ 53
`
`Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc.,
`951 F.3d 286 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc) ..................................... 41, 42
`
`Leitch v. Hornsby,
`935 S.W.2d 114 (Tex. 1996) ......................................................passim
`
`Leyendecker & Assocs. v. Wechter,
`683 S.W.2d 369 (Tex. 1984) ...................................................... 55, 56
`
`Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley,
`211 U.S. 149 (1908) ........................................................................ 51
`
`Maglioli v. Alliance HC Holdings LLC,
`16 F.4th 393 (3d Cir. 2021) .......................................................passim
`
`Maryland v. Soper,
`270 U.S. 9 (1926) ............................................................................ 31
`
`Miller v. Keyser,
`90 S.W.3d 712 (Tex. 2002) .............................................................. 54
`
`Mitchell v. Advanced HCS, L.L.C.,
`28 F.4th 580 (5th Cir. 2022) ......................................................passim
`
`
`xiii
`
`
`
`Case: 22-10061 Document: 00516307533 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/04/2022
`
`Nat’l Meat Ass’n v. Harris,
`565 U.S. 452 (2012) ............................................................ 43, 44, 45
`
`Perez v. Southeast SNF, L.L.C.,
`No. 21-50399, 2022 WL 987187
`(5th Cir. Mar. 31, 2022) (per curiam) ........................................ 28, 36
`
`Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Jenkins,
`297 U.S. 629 (1936) ........................................................................ 44
`
`Pittsburgh Melting Co. v. Totten,
`248 U.S. 1 (1918) ...................................................................... 43, 44
`
`Residents of Gordon Plaza, Inc. v. Cantrell,
`25 F.4th 288 (5th Cir. 2022) ................................................ 54, 60, 64
`
`Ryan v. Dow Chem. Co.,
`781 F. Supp. 934 (E.D.N.Y. 1992) .................................................... 39
`
`Saldana v. Glenhaven Healthcare LLC,
`27 F.4th 679 (9th Cir. 2022) ......................................................passim
`
`Sanchez v. Smart Fabricators of Texas, L.L.C.,
`997 F.3d 564 (5th Cir. 2021) ........................................................... 27
`
`SGIC Strategic Glob. Inv. Capital, Inc. v. Burger King Eur. GmbH,
`839 F.3d 422 (5th Cir. 2016) ........................................................... 58
`
`St. Charles Surgical Hosp., L.L.C. v. La. Health Serv. & Indem. Co.,
`990 F.3d 447 (5th Cir. 2021) ........................................................... 28
`
`Thomas v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.,
`832 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2016) ........................................................... 59
`
`Thule Drilling ASA v. Schimberg,
` 290 F. App’x 745 (5th Cir. 2008) ......................................... 54, 58, 59
`
`
`
`xiv
`
`
`
`Case: 22-10061 Document: 00516307533 Page: 15 Date Filed: 05/04/2022
`
`Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. Hudson,
`667 F.3d 630(5th Cir. 2012) ............................................................ 50
`
`United Food & Com. Workers Union, Local No. 663 v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric.,
`532 F. Supp. 3d 741 (D. Minn. 2021) ............................................... 45
`
`United States v. Vertac Chem. Corp.,
`46 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 1995) ............................................................. 48
`
`United States v. Vigil, 989 F.3d 406
`
`(5th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) ............................................................ 28
`
`Vanouwerker v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp.,
`No. 1:99CV179 TH, 1999 WL 335960
`(E.D. Tex. May 26, 1999) ................................................................. 42
`
`Washington v. Monsanto Co.,
`738 F. App’x 554 (9th Cir. 2018)...................................................... 39
`
`Watson v. Philip Morris Cos.,
`551 U.S. 142 (2007) ..................................................................passim
`
`Statutes
`21 U.S.C. § 602 ......................................................................................... 43
`
`21 U.S.C. § 678 ......................................................................................... 43
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1291 ......................................................................................... 5
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 ............................................................................... 1, 5, 18
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) ........................................................................passim
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1447 ......................................................................................... 4
`
`29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq. ............................................................................... 45
`
`
`xv
`
`
`
`Case: 22-10061 Document: 00516307533 Page: 16 Date Filed: 05/04/2022
`
`29 U.S.C. § 653(b)(4) ............................................................................... 45
`
`50 U.S.C. § 1621(b) ................................................................................... 10
`
`50 U.S.C. § 4502(a)(2)(c) ......................................................................... 47
`
`50 U.S.C. § 4511(a) ............................................................................. 36, 47
`
`50 U.S.C. § 4557 ................................................................................. 47, 48
`
`Rules and Regulations
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) ........................................................................... 5
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 8(a) ............................................................................. 63, 66
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ....................................................................... 54, 60
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) .................................................................................. 58
`
`Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 15.003 ....................................................... 64
`
`Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 36A.008 ..................................................... 64
`
`Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 82.008 ....................................................... 64
`
`Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 148.003 ......................................... 20, 60, 65
`
`Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 148.003(a) ...........................................passim
`
`Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 148.003(a)(1) ...................................... 61, 63
`
`Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 148.003(a)(2) ...................................... 61, 64
`
`Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 148.003(b)(1) ............................................ 62
`
`Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 148.003(i) ................................................. 63
`
`
`xvi
`
`
`
`Case: 22-10061 Document: 00516307533 Page: 17 Date Filed: 05/04/2022
`
`9 C.F.R. § 300.2(a) .................................................................................... 43
` C.F.R. § 300.2(b)(1) ............................................................................... 43
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Common Questions about Food Safety and COVID-19,
`USDA (Mar. 18, 2020),
`https://bit.ly/3srt2O4 ...................................................................... 13
`
`COVID-19 Update: USDA, FDA Underscore Current Epidemiologic and
`Scientific Information Indicating No Transmission of COVID-19 Through
`Food or Food Packaging, FDA
`(Feb. 18, 2021),
`https://bit.ly/3smizmL ..................................................................... 46
`
`Delegating Authority Under the Defense Production Act With Respect to
`Food Supply Chain Resources During the National Emergency
`Caused by the Outbreak of COVID-19, 85 Fed. Reg. 26,313
`(Apr. 28, 2020) ................................................................................ 15
`
`DSHS Announces First Case of COVID-19 in Texas,
`Tex. Dep’t of State Health Servs.
`(Mar. 4, 2020),
`https://bit.ly/3Fe0POf ....................................................................... 8
`
`FDA, Shopping for Food During the COVID-19 Pandemic—
`Information for Consumers
`(Apr. 16, 2020),
`https://bit.ly/3ecKb5x ..................................................................... 46
`
`Food Supply Chain, USDA,
`https://bit.ly/3EjMKgE ........................................................ 13, 17, 49
`
`Glenn v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Nos. 21-40622 & 21-11110
`(5th Cir. Dec. 27, 2021), Consolidated Response Brief of
`Plaintiffs-Appellees, 2021 WL 6288848 ............................................ 52
`
` 9
`
`
`
`xvii
`
`
`
`Case: 22-10061 Document: 00516307533 Page: 18 Date Filed: 05/04/2022
`
`HHS Announces Ventilator Contract with GM Under Defense
`Production Act, HHS
`(Apr. 8, 2020),
`https://bit.ly/3z8W7z6 .................................................................... 48
`
`Interview With U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams, CNN
`(Mar. 8, 2020),
`https://cnn.it/3qgZCzw ..................................................................... 9
`
`Kevin Stankiewicz, US households are being mailed
`‘President Trump’s Coronavirus Guidelines for America,’ CNBC.com
`(Mar. 27, 2020),
`https://cnb.cx/32EgNmo ................................................................. 10
`
`Letter from Sec’y Sonny Perdue, USDA
`(May 5, 2020),
`https://bit.ly/3smojNv ..................................................................... 49
`
`Letter from Sec’y Sonny Perdue, USDA
`(May 5, 2020),
`https://tinyurl.com/499n9zyu ......................................................... 37
`
`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),
`https://bit.ly/3OHpoIn .............................................................. 17, 37
`
`Modernization of Swine Slaughter Inspection,
`84 Fed. Reg. 52,300
`(Oct. 1, 2019) .................................................................................. 45
`
`Monica Alba, Administration’s mixed messaging on
`Defense Production Act causes confusion
`NBCNews.com
`(Mar. 25, 2020)
`https://bit.ly/3FabVoj ...................................................................... 14
`
`
`xviii
`
`
`
`Case: 22-10061 Document: 00516307533 Page: 19 Date Filed: 05/04/2022
`
`Proclamation by the Governor of the State of Texas
`(Mar. 13, 2020),
`https://bit.ly/3Fb9BfW ...................................................................... 8
`
`Proclamation No. 9994, 85 Fed. Reg. 15,337
`(Mar. 13, 2020),
`https://bit.ly/3H6YHrR. ..................................................................... 9
`
`Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Members of the
`Coronavirus Task Force in Press Briefing, Trump White House Archives
`(Mar. 15, 2020),
`https://bit.ly/3FesI8H ...................................................................... 10
`
`Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Members of the
`Coronavirus Task Force in Press Briefing, Trump White House Archives
`(Mar. 17, 2020),
`https://bit.ly/3sg7eoo ...................................................................... 10
`
`Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Members of the
`Coronavirus Task Force in Press Briefing, Trump White House Archives
`(Mar. 19, 2020),
`https://bit.ly/3GRjX4S ..................................................................... 10
`
`Secretary Perdue Issues Letters on Meat Packing Expectations, USDA
`(May 6, 2020),
`https://bit.ly/3phv5C2 ..................................................................... 16
`
`Tex. Governor Greg Abbott, Executive Order GA-08
`(Mar. 19, 2020),
`https://bit.ly/3yO0mzK ..................................................................... 8
`
`Tex. Governor Greg Abbott, Executive Order GA-14
`(Mar. 31, 2020),
` https://bit.ly/3e5pTLt ....................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xix
`
`
`
`Case: 22-10061 Document: 00516307533 Page: 20 Date Filed: 05/04/2022
`
`U.S. Department of Labor’s OSHA and CDC Issue Interim Guidance to
`Protect Workers in Meatpacking and Processing Industries, OSHA
`Nat’l News Release
`(Apr. 26, 2020),
`https://bit.ly/3H6RLLl ..................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`xx
`
`
`
`Case: 22-10061 Document: 00516307533 Page: 21 Date Filed: 05/04/2022
`
`INTRODUCTION
`This appeal arises after 41 injured workers contracted COVID-19 while
`working at a Tyson Foods plant during the pandemic’s early days. Plaintiffs
`filed suit in Texas state court raising well-established state-law negligence
`and wrongful-death claims, alleging that the unsafe work conditions at the
`plant caused their injuries and deaths.
`To remove the cases to federal court, Defendants primarily invoked the
`federal-officer-removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). (Using related
`arguments, they secondarily cited federal-question
`jurisdiction under
`§ 1331.) Defendants spin the story that all their actions during the pandemic’s
`early days were under the direction of federal officers like the President. The
`record does not support their tale. As the Eighth Circuit has rightly held, the
`record refutes it. Buljic v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 22 F.4th 730, 741 (8th Cir. 2021).
`Nobody disputes that COVID-19 created extraordinary circumstances.
`State and local governments issued wide-ranging stay-at-home orders. But
`those orders typically excluded so-called “critical infrastructure”: 16 sectors
`encompassing hundreds of categories of workers. As a few examples, those
`categories included meatpacking employees (like Plaintiffs here), healthcare
`workers, grocery and retail employees, restaurant workers, dry cleaners, and
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case: 22-10061 Document: 00516307533 Page: 22 Date Filed: 05/04/2022
`
`more. Still more, the Federal Government commandeered certain companies’
`production lines to force the rapid production of ventilators. But it did not
`similarly commandeer meatpacking-production lines.
`Tyson never shut the doors to many of its plants, including the plant
`where Plaintiffs contracted COVID-19. Tyson’s choice to remain open for
`business was encouraged—but never compelled—by the President and other
`federal officials, who held collaborative calls and made statements in support
`of a large variety of businesses’ continuing to operate.
`In late April 2020, the President issued an executive order targeted to
`companies within the Nation’s food-supply chain. Based on the Executive
`Order, the Secretary of Agriculture sent a letter to private food processors
`including Tyson, saying that they “should” do various things—e.g., follow
`guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the
`Occupational Safety Health Administration to protect workers. Although the
`Department of Agriculture noted the Secretary’s authority under the
`Executive Order to require companies like Tyson to fulfill their meat-supply
`contracts, the Secretary has never issued such an order.
`No matter how Defendants process their arguments, they cannot avoid
`this straightforward fact: the Federal Government never ordered Tyson to
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 22-10061 Document: 00516307533 Page: 23 Date Filed: 05/04/2022
`
`keep its business going. It never had to because Tyson itself had already made
`that profitable decision. And through that decision, Tyson worked alongside
`(not under the control of) government agencies to continue its ongoing
`private enterprise. None of the Federal Government’s subsequent actions—
`issuing detailed guidance, encouraging businesses like Tyson to follow it, and
`continuing the preexisting supervision and monitoring of those businesses—
`transformed Tyson’s ordinary regulatory relationship with the Government
`into a special one of subservience, in which Tyson’s actions were under the
`direction of the Government to perform a task that the Government otherwise
`would perform itself.
`In other words, no matter the Government’s encouragement or
`guidance, Tyson’s actions remained its own. Yet even were it somehow
`otherwise, no statute provides Tyson with a colorable federal defense to its
`garden-variety negligence.
` “There is no COVID-19 exception to federalism.”