DANA NESSEL, Attorney General of the State of Michigan, on behalf of the people of the State of Michigan v. ENBRIDGE ENERGY, LP; ENBRIDGE ENERGY COMPANY, INC.; ENBRIDGE ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P. - Articles

All Content

DANA NESSEL, Attorney General of the State of Michigan, on behalf of the people of the State of Michigan v. ENBRIDGE ENERGY, LP; ENBRIDGE ENERGY COMPANY, INC.; ENBRIDGE ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P.

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Jun 17, 2024

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Daniel P. Bock, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY MICHIGAN GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Alice Loughran, STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Daniel P. Bock, Keith D. Underkoffler, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY MICHIGAN GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Alice Loughran, David H. Coburn, Mark C. Savignac, STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP, Washington, D.C., John J. Bursch, BURSCH LAW PLLC, Caledonia, Michigan, Phillip J. DeRosier, DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC, Detroit, Michigan, Jeffery V. Stuckey, DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellees.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Andy Buchsbaum, BUCHSBAUM & ASSOCIATES LLC, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Joseph T. Heegaard, OFFICE OF THE MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL, St. Paul, Minnesota, James M. Olson, OLSON, BZDOK & HOWARD, PC, Traverse City, Michigan, Christopher R. Clark, EARTHJUSTICE, Chicago, Illinois, Jonathan D. Newman, SHERMAN DUNN, P.C., Washington, D.C., Elbert Lin, HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Amici Curiae.

Judge(s): GRIFFIN, THAPAR, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel seeks to shut down Enbridge’s Line 5 Pipeline, which runs underwater across the Straits of Mackinac between Michigan’s Lower and Upper Peninsulas. The merits of this litigation are not before us. Instead, we consider only which court should decide this case: does it belong in Michigan state court (where the Attorney General filed it in 2019) or in federal court (to where Enbridge removed it over two years later)? We hold that Enbridge failed to timely remove this case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), and there are no equitable exceptions to the statute’s deadlines for removal. Thus, under these circumstances, this case belongs in Michigan state court. Because the district court held to the contrary, we reverse the district court and direct it to remand this case to Michigan’s 30th Circuit Court for the County of Ingham.

Attachments: