In re Wireless Telephone Radio Frequency Emissions, No. MDL 1421. CIV.A. 01-MD-1421.
| Decision Date | 21 June 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. MDL 1421. CIV.A. 01-MD-1421. |
| Citation | 216 F.Supp.2d 474 |
| Parties | In re WIRELESS TELEPHONE RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION Pinney, et al. v. Nokia, et al. (D.Md.) Farina v. Nokia, et al. (E.D.Pa.) Gilliam, et. al. v. Nokia, Inc., et. al. (S.D.N.Y.) Gimpelson v. Nokia, Inc., et. al. (N.D.Ga.) Naquin, et. al. v. Nokia, Inc., et al. (E.D.La.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
H. Thomas Howell, Howell & Gately, Baltimore, MD, for J. Douglas Pinney.
H. Thomas Howell, Howell & Gately, Baltimore, MD, H. Russell Smouse, Peter G. Angelos, John A. Pica, Jr., Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, Baltimore, MD, for Patricia S. Colonell.
H. Russell Smouse, Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, Baltimore, MD, for Francis J. Farina, Garrett J. Naquin.
H. Russell Smouse, Peter G. Angelos, John C.M. Angelos, John A. Pica, Jr., Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, Baltimore, MD, for Crystall Gilliam, Dimitri Mack.
Michael Weinstock, Weinstock and Scavo PC, Atlanta, GA, for Riedy Gimpelson.
Burton Finkelstein, Tracy Diana Rezvani, Richard Maxwell Volin, Finkelstein Thompson and Loughran, Washington, DC, for Sarah Dahlgren.
Carl B. Hilliard, Jr., Law Offices of Carl B. Hilliard, Jr., Del Mar, CA, Adam Gonnello, Farugi and Farugi, New York, NY, for Gibb Power, Kim Brower.
John B. Isbister, Tydings and Rosenberg, LLP, Baltimore, MD, Steven M. Zager, Austin Tighe, Brobeck Phleger and Harrison LLP, Austin, TX, for Nokia, Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
James P. Ulwick, Kramon and Graham, Baltimore, MD, Brian P. Quirk, James B. Irwin, Irwin Fritchie Urquhart and Moore, LLC, New Orleans, LA, for NEC America, Inc.
Gregg L. Bernstein, Denis J. Charlesworth, Martin Snyder and Bernstein, PA, Baltimore, MD, David T. Moran, Charles L. Babcock, Ryan C. Wirtz, Jackson Walker, LLP, Dallas, TX, for Ericsson Wireless Communications, Inc.
Paul S. Schleifman, Shook Hardy and Bacon, LLP, Washington, DC, J. Stan Sexton, Michael D. Moeller, Shook Hardy and Bacon, LLP, Kansas City, MO, for Sprint PCS Ltd. Partnership.
Mark H. Kolman, Leslie R. Cohen, Dickstein Shapiro Morin and Oshinsky LLP, Washington, DC, for Audiovox Communications Corp.
Sheila L. Birnbaum, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom, LLP, New York, NY, Patrick R. Buckler, Baltimore, MD, Edward M. Crane, David L. Hanselman, Jr., Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom, Chicago, IL, Ronald M. Cherry, Law Offices of Ronald M. Cherry, Towson, MD, for Nextel Communications, Inc.
Paul D. Krause, Laura Nachowitz Steel, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman and Dicker, LLP, Washington, DC, for Matsushita Corp. of America.
Raymond B. Biagini, Ray M. Aragon, McKenna Loing and Aldridge LLP, Washington DC, for Philips Electronic North America Corp.
George C. Doub, Jr., William H. Murphy, Jr., George C. Doub, III, William H. Murphy, III, George C. Doub, PC, Baltimore, MD, Francis A. Citera, Greenberg Traurig, PC, Chicago, IL, for Qualcomm Inc., Sony Electronics, Inc.
Paul D. Krause, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman and Dicker, LLP, Washington, DC, Andrew M. Winick, Brown Diffenderffer and Kearney, LLP, Baltimore, MD, for Sanyo North America, Inc.
Antonia B. Ianniello, Stephen Anthony Fennell, Thomas M. Barba, Jennifer Quinn Barabanov, Mark F. Horning, Stewart A. Baker, Steptoe and Johnson, LLP, Washington, DC, for AT&T Corp.
Paul F. Strain, Venable Baetjer and Howard, LLP, Baltimore, MD, M. King Hill, III, Venable Baetjer and Howard, LLP, Towson, MD, Laura Owens, Jane Fugate Thorpe, Scott Elder, Alston and Bird, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Verizon Maryland, Inc.
John Henry Lewin, Jr., Paul F. Strain, Venable Baetjer and Howard, LLP, Baltimore, MD, M. King Hill, III, Venable Baetjer and Howard, LLP, Towson, MD, Laura Owens, Jane Fugate Thorpe, Scott Elder, Alston and Bird, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for VeriOn Communications, Inc., Verizon Wireless.
John Henry Lewin, Jr., Venable Baetjer and Howard, LLP, Baltimore, MD, M. King Hill, III, Venable Baetjer and Howard, LLP, Towson, MD, Laura Owens, Jane Fugate Thorpe, Scott Elder, Alston and Bird, LLP, Atlanta, GA, Biran Brooks, O'Melveny and Myers, LLP, Washington, DC, for Cellco Partnership.
Thomas C. Watson, Curtis S. Renner, Watson and Renner, Washington, DC, for Cingular Wireless, LLC, Cingular Wireless.
Richard Alan Dean, Arter and Hadden, LLP, Washington, DC, Charles L. Perry, Arter and Hadden, LLP, Dallas, TX, for Cellular One Group.
Charles P. Goodell, Jr., James A. Frederick, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann, LLP, Baltimore, MD, Eugene A. Schoon, Tamar B. Kelber, James W. Mizgala, Sidley Austin Brown and Wood, Chicago, IL, for Voicestream Wireless Corp.
John J. Nagle, III, Winn C. Friddell, Bodie Nagle Dolina Smith and Hobbs, PA, Towson, MD, Elwood E. Swam, Hampstead, MD, for C.E.I., Inc.
Maureen E. Murphy, Murphy and Murphy, Baltimore, MD, for Baltimore Business Communications, Inc.
Seamus C. Duffy, Drinker, Biddle & Reath, P.H., Philadelphia, PA, for Comcast/Metrophone.
John A. Stewart, Jr., Hulse and Wanek, New Orleans, LA, Mark J. Jeansonne, Milling Benson Woodward, New Orleans, LA, for Radiofone.
Michael E. Yaggy, Kenneth L. Thompson, Anthony Michael Conti, Piper Rudnick, LLP, Baltimore, MD, for Motorola, Inc.
Colleen A. Hartman, Daniel S. Reinhardt, Steven J. Hewitson, Troutman Sanders, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Southern Telecom, Inc.
Eugene A. Schoon, Sidley Austin Brown and Wood, Chicago, IL, for Powertel, Inc., Powertel PCS, Inc., Powertel/Atlanta, Inc.
William D. Barwick, Elizabeth W. Boswell, James A. Orr, Alana Black Zielinski, Sutherland Asbill and Brennan, LLP, Atlanta, GA, Alexander X. Jackins, Washington, DC, for MCI Worldcom Communications, Inc.
Kevin B. Getzendanner, Matthew T. Covell, Arnall Golden Gregory, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Mitsubishi wireless Communications Inc. Paul F. Strain, Venable Baetjer and Howard, LLP, Baltimore, MD, Jane Fugate Thorpe, Alston and Bird, LLP, Atlanta, GA, John Beisner, O'Melveny and Myers, LLP, Washington, DC, for Verizon Communications, Inc.
Steven M. Laduzinsky, Scott A. Hanfling, Kane Laduzinsky and Mendoza, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Ass'n.
Ralph A. Taylor, Jr., Bruce Kenneth Trauben, Dorsey and Whitney, LLP, Washington, DC, for Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.
The plaintiffs in this multidistrict litigation have brought five class actions against defendants in the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, Georgia, and Louisiana. Each count of each complaint is brought, on its face, under state statutory or common law.1 Asserting federal jurisdiction under several theories, the defendants filed notices of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) in all five actions. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the cases to this court. Now pending is plaintiffs' consolidated and renewed motion for remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The issues have been fully briefed, and a hearing was held on February 15, 2002. For the reasons set forth below, the plaintiffs' motion will be denied.
Plaintiffs purport to represent all cell phone purchasers who have not been diagnosed with brain-related diseases, and who were not provided with headsets when they purchased or leased their telephones. They allege that defendants have negligently and fraudulently endangered the consuming public by providing wireless phones without headsets, knowing that these phones emit unsafe levels of radio frequency ("RF") radiation. Rather than seek a traditional tort or contract remedy on behalf of this strangely defined class, however, plaintiffs ask their respective state courts to: (1) declare wireless phones that are in compliance with the FCC's safety regulations on radio frequency emissions "unreasonably dangerous" under state law when sold without headsets; (2) enjoin defendants from selling FCC-compliant wireless phones without headsets; (3) order defendants to provide free headsets to all wireless telephone users; and (4) order defendants to provide "warnings" to consumers about the "dangers" of using FCC-compliant phones. As illustrated by the relief requested, the plaintiffs' suits, though couched in the language of state tort and contract law, have only one goal— to challenge in state court the validity and sufficiency of the federal regulations on radio frequency radiation from wireless phones. Because plaintiffs' suits are a disguised attack on federal law in an area of national importance, the court will exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims.
State court actions which originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Caterpillar v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987); Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chemicals Company, Inc., 29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir.1994). Section 1441 provides, in pertinent part, that "any civil action brought in a state court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending." 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Absent diversity of citizenship, the propriety of removal under § 1441 depends on whether the action is one "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States," as set forth by 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Mulcahey, 29 F.3d at 151; Rosciszewski v. Arete Associates, Inc., 1 F.3d 225, 230 (4th Cir.1993).
As the Fourth Circuit has explained:
In order to determine if an action arises under federal law, we must apply the well-pleaded complaint rule. See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987). This rule `provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Little v. Purdue Pharma, L.P.
...of action would necessarily turn on successfully proving the commission of federal crimes); In re Wireless Tel. Radio Frequency Emissions Prods. Liability, 216 F.Supp.2d 474, 493-93 (D.Md.2002) (opining that complete preemption is one, but not the only, doctrine that comes within the larger......
-
Pinney v. Nokia, Inc.
...and sufficiency of the federal RF radiation standards for wireless telephones. See In Re Wireless Tel. Radio Frequency Emissions Prods. Liab. Litig., 216 F.Supp.2d 474, 488 (D.Md.2002) (In re Wireless I). The ultimate objective of these complaints, according to the district court, "is to at......
-
Farina v. Nokia
...The Farina and Naquin plaintiffs then filed motions to remand, which Judge Blake denied. In re Wireless Tel. Radio Frequency Emissions Prods. Liab. Litig., 216 F.Supp.2d 474, 491-93 (D.Md.2002). Subsequently, Judge Blake granted motions to dismiss all of the consolidated cases based on fede......
-
Pinney v. Nokia, Incorporated, No. 03-1433 (Fed. 4th Cir. 3/28/2005), 03-1433.
...and sufficiency of the federal RF radiation standards for wireless telephones. See In Re Wireless Tel. Radio Frequency Emissions Prods. Liab. Litig., 216 F. Supp. 2d 474, 488 (D. Md. 2002) (In re Wireless I). The ultimate objective of these complaints, according to the district court, "is t......
-
Wandering along the road to competition and convergence - the changing CMRS roadmap.
...fraud, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief not preempted); In re Wireless Tel. Radio Frequency Emissions Prod. Liab. Litig., 216 F. Supp. 2d 474 (D. Md. 2002) (holding state negligence and fraud claims not preempted); Braco v. MCI WorldCom Comm. Inc., 138 F. Supp. 2d 1260 (C.D. Cal. 2......