Cnty. of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO REMAND

VINCE CHHABRIA, United States District Judge *937 The plaintiffs' motions to remand are granted.

Because federal common law does not govern the plaintiffs' claims, it also does not preclude them from asserting the state law claims in these lawsuits. Simply put, these cases should not have been removed to federal court on the basis of federal common law that no longer exists.

2. Nor was removal warranted under the doctrine of complete preemption. State law claims are often preempted by federal law, but preemption alone seldom *938 justifies removing a case from state court to federal court. Usually, state courts are left to decide whether state law claims are preempted by federal law under principles of "express preemption," "conflict preemption" or "field preemption." And state courts are entirely capable of adjudicating that sort of question. See, e.g. , Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , 135 Cal.App.4th 1463 , 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 653 , 665-73 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005), as modified on denial of reh'g (Jan. 26, 2006); Carpenters Health & Welfare Trust Fund for California v. McCracken , 83 Cal.App.4th 1365 , 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 473 , 474-77 (Cal. Ct. App.…