Anderson v. Airco, Inc., C.A. No. 03-123-SLR (D. Del. 7/28/2003), C.A. No. 03-123-SLR.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Delaware)
Writing for the CourtSue Robinson
PartiesRICHARD V. ANDERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AIRCO, INC., et al., Defendants.
Docket NumberC.A. No. 03-123-SLR.
Decision Date28 July 2003

Page 1

RICHARD V. ANDERSON, et al., Plaintiffs,
AIRCO, INC., et al., Defendants.
C.A. No. 03-123-SLR.
United States District Court, D. Delaware.
July 28, 2003.

SUE ROBINSON, Chief Judge, District.

At Wilmington this 28th day of July, 2003, having reviewed plaintiffs' motion to remand and defendants' responses thereto;

IT IS ORDERED that said motion (D.I. 12) is granted, for the reasons that follow:

1. The 36 named defendants removed the above-captioned case to this court from the Superior Court of the State of Delaware pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and 1446, on the asserted grounds that the removed action "necessarily arises under federal law and could originally have been filed in this Court pursuant to the Court's federal question jurisdiction." (D.I. 1, ¶ 1)

2. Plaintiffs at bar assert eight causes of action against various groupings of defendants arising out of alleged workplace exposure to vinyl chloride monomer ("VCM") alleged to have occurred between 1983 to 1996: negligent failure to adequately warn of the known hazards of VCM (Count I); strict products liability for failure to adequately warn (Count II); negligent and intentional failure to provide a safe workplace (Count III); reckless failure to provide accurate and sufficient information regarding VCM (Count IV); fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation of the dangers of VCM (Count V); conspiracy to commit fraud, misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment of the dangers of VCM (Count VI); aiding and abetting the fraudulent concealment of the health hazards of VCM (Count VII); and loss of consortium (Count VIII).

3. According to defendants, "[t]he essence of each of plaintiffs' claims, no matter how framed, is the alleged failure to adequately warn of the health risks of workplace exposure to VCM. . . . Workplace warnings relating to VCM are conclusively and exclusively governed by federal statute and comprehensive federal regulation promulgated by the Secretary of Labor under his delegated powers."1 (D.I. 1, ¶¶ 3, 4) Defendants argue that "[f]ederal law and federal regulation so completely occupy the field of occupational safety and health, as it pertains to plaintiffs' purported exposure to VCM, that plaintiffs' complaint, premised as it is on purported exposure to VCM, must be recharacterized as stating a federal cause of action." (D.I. 1, ¶ 5)

4. "[T]he question whether a certain state action is preempted by federal law is one of congressional...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT