Acuna v. Brown & Root, SUSQUEHANNA-WESTERN
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before GARWOOD, SMITH and BENAVIDES; BENAVIDES |
| Citation | 200 F.3d 335 |
| Parties | (5th Cir. 2000) CRECENSIO ACUNA; LEONARDO ACUNA, Individually and as next friend of Pedro Acuna, Leonardo Acuna, Jr. & Genaro Acuna, Minors; HELEN LEAL ALANIZ, Individually and as next friend of Abel Alaniz, Jr., Justin Alaniz & Nicole Alaniz, Minors; CONSUELO R. AGUERO, Individually and as next friend of Mark Anthony Aguero & Anna Marie Aguero, Minors; JOSE LUIS AGUERO, JR., Individually and as next friend of Patrick T. Aguero, a Minor; ET AL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BROWN & ROOT INC.; ET AL, Defendants; BROWN & ROOT INC.; CHEVRON USA INC., Individually, as parent, and successor in interest to Chevron Resources Company, a division of Chevron Industries, Inc.; CONOCO, INC.; CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY; EXXON CORPORATION; RIO GRANDE RESOURCES CORPORATION; GENERAL ATOMICS, doing business as General Atomics Corp.; ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, as successor in interest to Anaconda Company; INTERCONTINENTAL ENERGY CORPORATION, doing business as IEC Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. REBECCA GARCIA, Individually and as next friend of Stephanie Renee Garcia, a minor; ROGELIO GARCIA; ROMONA GARCIA; SYLVIA M. GARCIA; YOLANDA GARCIA, Individually and as next friend of Roxanne Garcia, Rafael Garcia, Minors, ET AL, Plaintiffs - Appellants v. CONOCO INC; ET AL, Defendants; CONOCO INC; CONQUISTA PROJECT CORPORATION; CONTINENTAL OIL CO; CHEVRON CORPORATION; CHEVRON RESOURCES; EXXON CORPORATION; GENERAL ATOMICS, doing business as General Atomics Corp; TOTALE INC; CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT INC; CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT OF TEXAS, INC; TOTALE CORPORATION; TOTAL AMERICAN MINING, INC; MALAPAI RESOURCES COMPANY; EVEREST MINERALS CORPORATION; PIONEER CORPORATION; PIONEER NUCLEAR INC; ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY;INC; RIO GRANDE RESOURCES CORPORATION; INTERCONTINENTAL ENERGY CORPORATION; URANIUM RESOURCES INC; GILBERT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF TEXAS, INC; GILBERT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY II; GILBERT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; OXY MINERALS CORPORATION;INCORPORATED; E G GONZALES TRUCKING & PAVING; BUDDY SMI |
| Docket Number | CHEM-WASTE,N,MO-VAC,SUSQUEHANNA-WESTERN,No. 98-51073 |
| Decision Date | 11 January 2000 |
Page 335
v.
BROWN & ROOT INC.; ET AL, Defendants;
v.
CONOCO INC; ET AL, Defendants;
Page 336
Page 337
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Before GARWOOD, SMITH and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge:
The above-captioned cases were consolidated on appeal. They present the common issue of whether jurisdiction in the federal courts is appropriate under the Price Anderson Act, 42 U.S.C. 2210(n)(2), where plaintiffs have alleged tortious injury arising from uranium mining activity. Plaintiffs-appellants also appeal the imposition of certain pre-discovery orders and argue, in the alternative, that they satisfied any burdens placed upon them and that their cases should not have been dismissed. As discussed below, we find that jurisdiction was proper under 42 U.S.C. 2210(n)(2) and that dismissal of the cases was proper.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Crecension Acuna and other plaintiffs, in total numbering over one thousand, brought suit in Texas state court against defendant companies for alleged personal injuries and property damage arising from defendants' uranium mining and processing activities. Rebecca Garcia and approximately 600 other plaintiffs brought suit alleging similar claims against a partially overlapping set of defendants, most of whom were also engaged in uranium mining activities in another area of Texas.
In both cases, plaintiffs alleged that they were exposed to and injured by the defendants'
Page 338
mining and processing activities. Some plaintiffs worked in uranium mines or processing plants, while others alleged exposure to radiation or uranium dust or tailings through contact with family members who worked in the mines or through environmental factors such as wind and groundwater. Plaintiffs alleged a range of injuries as well as durations and intensities of exposure.1
Both suits were filed in Texas courts, alleging causes of action under state law. Defendants removed the cases to the federal district court for the Western District of Texas, where they were treated as related cases. Over plaintiffs' objections, that court asserted jurisdiction under the Price Anderson Act, 42 U.S.C. 2210(n)(2). First in Acuna and then in Garcia, the court issued pre-discovery scheduling orders that required plaintiffs to establish certain elements of their claims through expert affidavits. Those affidavits had to specify, for each plaintiff, the injuries or illnesses suffered by the plaintiff that were caused by the alleged uranium exposure, the materials or substances causing the injury and the facility thought to be their source, the dates or circumstances and means of exposure to the injurious materials, and the scientific and medical bases for the expert's opinions.
In response to the order issued in Acuna, plaintiffs submitted just over one thousand form affidavits from a single expert, Dr. Smith. Those...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation, No. 21 MC 100 (AKH).
...Defendants rely on cases like In re TMI Litig. Cases Consol. II, 940 F.2d 832, 854-55, 857 (3d Cir.1991), and Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339^0 (5th Cir.2000), interpreting the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988. The Price-Anderson Act preempts suits "arising out of or res......
-
Morgan v. Dow Chem. Co., CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-269-JWD-UNA
...of removal must be resolved in favor of remand." Gasch, 491 F.3d at 281-82 (citing Carpenter, 44 F.3d at 366; Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2000)); see also Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Acuna, 200 F.3d at 33......
-
Donahue v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., Case No. A–14–CA–563–SS.
...remand to state court. Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir.2002) (citing Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir.2000) ). The party seeking to remove bears the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction exists and that removal was proper.......
-
Mpj v. Aero Sky, L.L.C., Civil Action No. SA-09-CV-693-XR.
...Docket no. 5 at 5. 140. See Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 S.Ct. 466, 472, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). 141. Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 340 (5th Cir.2000); Douglass v. United Serv. Auto. Ass'n., 79 F.3d 1415, 1428 (5th...
-
Big Bend Tel. Co. v. Halo Wireless, Inc. (In re Halo Wireless, Inc.), Cause No. A–11–CV–721–LY.
...1408 (5th Cir.1995). Any doubts regarding the propriety of removal are to be resolved in favor of remand. See Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir.2000); see also Luevano v. Dow Corning Corp., 183 B.R. 751 (W.D.Tex.1995). Additionally, the Fifth Circuit embraces the futili......
-
Warren v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, Civil Action No. 3:14–CV–0784–B.
...Any doubts regarding whether removal jurisdiction is proper should be resolved against federal jurisdiction. Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir.2000).III.ANALYSISThe Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act authorizes Fannie Mae to “sue and to be sued, and to c......
-
Texas First Nat. Bank v. Wu, CIV.A. H-04-4129.
...Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108, 61 S.Ct. 868, 85 L.Ed. 1214 (1941) (supporting same); Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir.2000) (same). Not every allegation of federal law is proof that federal question jurisdiction exists. Gully v. First Nat'l Bank......
-
Amburgey v. Barnhart, CIV.A. H-01-3881.
...and legal conclusions, on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 340 (5th Cir.2000); Douglass v. United Services Automobile Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir.1996) (en banc); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1.......