throbber
Case: 22-10061 Document: 00516307533 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2022
`
`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.”

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket