“[W]e construe the facts in the removal notice[s] in the light most favorable to [the manufacturers].” Id. at 811 (quoting In re Commonwealth’s Motion to Appoint Counsel Against or Directed to Def.

place while the defendant was acting under the direction of a federal officer or agency.”4 The District Court concluded that the manufacturers were required, but failed, to establish that they were “‘acting under’ the United States, its agencies, or its officers,” and that the claims against them “are ‘for, or relating to’ an act under color of federal office.”5 We agree.

legal authority ... [n]or ... of any contract, any payment, any employer/employee relationship, or any principal/agent arrangement,” nor “evidence of some such special relationship” apart “from the usual regulator/regulated relationship”), with Papp, 842 F.3d at 813 (defendant was “acting under” because plaintiff’s claims were “directed at actions [defendant] took while working under a federal contract to produce an item the government needed, ... and that the government otherwise would have been forced to produce on its own”).

Such an inference, however, does not permit us to conclude that the counties’ claims regarding the proliferation of lead-based paint in their housing stock are “directed at the relationship” those contracts established.

Because the manufacturers have not established federal subject-matter jurisdiction at this time, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

“[W]e construe the facts in the removal notice[s] in the light most favorable to [the manufacturers].” Id. at 811 (quoting In re Commonwealth’s Motion to Appoint Counsel Against or Directed to Def.

place while the defendant was acting under the direction of a federal officer or agency.”4 The District Court concluded that the manufacturers were required, but failed, to establish that they were “‘acting under’ the United States, its agencies, or its officers,” and that the claims against them “are ‘for, or relating to’ an act under color of federal office.”5 We agree.

legal authority ... [n]or ... of any contract, any payment, any employer/employee relationship, or any principal/agent arrangement,” nor “evidence of some such special relationship” apart “from the usual regulator/regulated relationship”), with Papp, 842 F.3d at 813 (defendant was “acting under” because plaintiff’s claims were “directed at actions [defendant] took while working under a federal contract to produce an item the government needed, ... and that the government otherwise would have been forced to produce on its own”).

Such an inference, however, does not permit us to conclude that the counties’ claims regarding the proliferation of lead-based paint in their housing stock are “directed at the relationship” those contracts established.

Because the manufacturers have not established federal subject-matter jurisdiction at this time, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604

December 1, 2022 By the Court:

AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY, et al., Defendants - Appellees Originating Case Information: District Court Nos: 2:07-cv-00303-LA, 2:07-cv-00441-LA & 2:10-cv-00075-LA Eastern District of Wisconsin District Judge Lynn Adelman Upon consideration of the JOINT MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL, filed on November 22, 2022, by counsel for the appellants, IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b).

AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY, et al., Defendants - Appellees Originating Case Information: District Court Nos: 2:07-cv-00303-LA, 2:07-cv-00441-LA & 2:10-cv-00075-LA Eastern District of Wisconsin District Judge Lynn Adelman Herewith is the mandate of this court in this appeal, along with the Bill of Costs, if any.

A certified copy of the opinion/order of the court and judgment, if any, and any direction as to costs shall constitute the mandate.

Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604

December 1, 2022 By the Court:

AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY, et al., Defendants - Appellees Originating Case Information: District Court Nos: 2:07-cv-00303-LA, 2:07-cv-00441-LA & 2:10-cv-00075-LA Eastern District of Wisconsin District Judge Lynn Adelman Upon consideration of the JOINT MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL, filed on November 22, 2022, by counsel for the appellants, IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b).

AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY, et al., Defendants - Appellees Originating Case Information: District Court Nos: 2:07-cv-00303-LA, 2:07-cv-00441-LA & 2:10-cv-00075-LA Eastern District of Wisconsin District Judge Lynn Adelman Herewith is the mandate of this court in this appeal, along with the Bill of Costs, if any.

A certified copy of the opinion/order of the court and judgment, if any, and any direction as to costs shall constitute the mandate.

These two complaints, filed in state court in San Francisco and Oakland before removal here, allege that six oil companies, on a worldwide basis, produced and promoted gasoline and other fossil fuel products as safe for the environment while concealing that their combustion would accelerate global warming, would melt the polar caps, would cause a rising of sea levels, and would eventually flood parts of those cities.

Defendants’ planned production of fossil fuels into the future will exacerbate global warming, accelerate sea level rise even further, and require greater and more costly abatement actions to protect [Oakland / San Francisco]” (Oakl.

In that decision, our court of appeals expressly found that plaintiffs here have proffered the same theory of liability: “[T]he substance of [plaintiffs’] claims is the same as in Oakland: tortious conduct by the Energy Companies in the course of producing, selling, and promoting the use of fossil fuels contributed to global warming and sea-level rise, which led to property damage and other injuries to the Counties.” Id. at 747–48.

But it rejected removal jurisdiction — despite recognizing the tortious conduct by the energy companies at issue included producing and selling fossil fuels (32 F.4th at 747–48) — because the pleadings “raise[d] state-law claims arising from injuries to real property and infrastructure within their local jurisdictions.” Id. at 749–50.

PAW’s Deputy Petroleum Administrator Ralph K. Davies stated: In all the functional fields that cover the vast and complex business of supplying oil for an oil-powered war — production, natural gas, refining, transportation, and marketing — measures of control were necessary to assure coordination, efficiency, and success.