In re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation
| Citation | 270 F.Supp.2d 357 |
| Decision Date | 20 June 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 21 MC 100 (AKH).,No. 02 Civ. 9127 (AKH).,No. 02 Civ. 8434 (AKH).,No. 03 Civ. 0034 (AKH).,No. 02 Civ. 9126 (AKH).,No. 03 Civ. 0008 (AKH).,No. 02 Civ. 8938 (AKH).,No. 02 Civ. 8092 (AKH).,No. 03 Civ. 0193 (AKH).,No. 02 Civ. 9128 (AKH).,21 MC 100 (AKH).,02 Civ. 8434 (AKH).,02 Civ. 8092 (AKH).,02 Civ. 8938 (AKH).,02 Civ. 9126 (AKH).,02 Civ. 9127 (AKH).,02 Civ. 9128 (AKH).,03 Civ. 0008 (AKH).,03 Civ. 0034 (AKH).,03 Civ. 0193 (AKH). |
| Parties | In re WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER SITE LITIGATION. Thomas Hickey and Francis Hickey, Plaintiffs, v. The City of New York and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Defendants. Johan Bel, William Quinlan, Bertha Quinlan, James Sweeney, Kathleen Sweeney, William D. McCue, and Maureen McCue, Plaintiffs, v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Silverstein Properties, and the City of New York, Defendants. Clinton Beyer, Joan Beyer, Peter Blake, and Sharon Blake, Plaintiffs, v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Defendant. Vincent McNally, Gina McNally, Francis Lavery, and Kathryn Lavery, Plaintiffs, v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Defendant. Joseph Ariola, Colleen Ariola, James Blake, John M. Deneau, Lisa Deneau, Joseph Healy, Janet Healy, George Lamoreaux, Ingrid Lamoreaux, Thomas Magee, Patrick Malloy, Lorimalloy, Jon J. McGillick, Arlene McGillick, Michael Spiller, Leah Spiller, Timothy Villari, Maria Villari, Anthony R. Larosa, Angela Larosa, Roger Danvers, James Mascarella, John F. Taggart, and Theresa Taggart, Plaintiffs, v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Defendant. James Blake, Timothy Villari, and Maria Villari, Plaintiffs, v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Defendant. Kim Flechaus, Plaintiff, v. The City of New York, Defendant. Barry J. Albrecht, and two-hundred-fifty-one other plaintiffs listed in Rider "A" annexed hereto, Plaintiffs, v. The City of New York, Defendant. John Baiano, Jack Biggs, John Bonvicino, John BOU, Kevin Brannick, Wayne Brown, Robert Carannante, Victor Carpentier, Alan Ceserano, Michael Conlon, Phyliss Costarella, Gerald Damitz, Anthony Delbianco, Lenny Dinotte, Daniel Donovan, Roy Edwards, Joseph Falcone, Nelson Garcia, Anthony Giordano, Robert Goffredo, Michael Guidicipietro, Rafael Guttierez, Otto Havel HI, Robert Henri, Pelops Irby, Austin Johnson, Jason Keenan, Kevin Kempton, Omar Malave, Daniel Maldonado, John Menoni, Martin Mullaney, Mickey Nardiello, Frank Ozello, John Pankey, Nicholas Parascandola, Vincent Parise, Thomas Perry, Jerry Pizzarello, Juan Rullan, Raymond Russo, John Salomone, George Snyder, Alexis Solomon, and Christian Trembone, Plaintiffs, v. The City of New York, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Lonny Levitz, Kuharski & Levitz, LLP, New York City, Robin M. Wertheimer, Wertheimer Associates, PC, New York City, for Plaintiffs.
Matthew J. Maiorana, Kenneth A. Becker, Gary P. Shaffer, Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel of City of New York, New York CityRiehard A. Williamson, Jason T. Cohen, Flemming, Zulack & Williamson, LLP, New York City, for Defendants.
For almost 100 years, New York State, through numerous provisions of its labor laws, has regulated the workplace to ensure safe conditions for employees. See, e.g., N.Y. Lab. Law §§ 200(1), 241(6) (2003). Pursuant to these statutes, approximately 1200 workers involved in the rescue and clean-up efforts following the collapse of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 have brought suit against the City of New York ("the City") and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey ("the Port Authority"). Their claims are that the City and the Port Authority violated the Labor Law by not providing adequate safety equipment and that, because of such violations, the plaintiffs suffered respiratory injuries. They filed their suits in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.
The Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, 49 U.S.C. § 40101 (2003) ("the Act"), provides that all suits "for damages arising out of the hijacking and subsequent crashes" are federal causes of action, and that all claims "resulting from or relating to" those crashes are to be brought exclusively in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. See Act § 408(b). The Act also provides for limitations of aggregate liability on the part of the City and the Port Authority with regard to such suits and claims. See Act § 408(a).
Relying on the Act, the City and the Port Authority removed these respiratory injury suits from the Supreme Court to this court. Motions to remand by many of the plaintiffs followed. In this opinion, I decide whether, and to what extent, the Act preempts state law and state-court jurisdiction.
Following September 11, 2001, thousands of workers—including police officers, firefighters, construction workers, Department of Sanitation employees, and other laborers—toiled at the World Trade Center site and in the surrounding areas. In the first days after the attacks, the activity was aimed at the paramount goal of rescuing survivors. On September 29, 2001, the mandate officially shifted, moving from search for survivors to demolition of the ruined structure and clean-up of the mountain of debris, tasks that continued for approximately eight more months.
I hold that claims for respiratory injury based on exposures suffered at the World Trade Center site between September 11, 2001 and September 29, 2001 "arise out of," "result from," and are "related to" the attacks of September 11, 2001 and must proceed exclusively under the Act and in this court. I also hold that claims based on exposures outside the World Trade Center or after September 29, 2001 fall beyond the pre-emptive reach of the Act, and remain governed by the New York Labor Law, to be applied in the New York Supreme Court as part of its traditional and historic jurisdiction over New York's labor laws, or in this court as part of its supplemental jurisdiction, as shall be determined by additional proceedings before an United States Magistrate Judge.
On September 11, 2001, two hijacked airplanes were deliberately flown into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, crippling the buildings, trapping people in the floors above, and causing the buildings to collapse and crush those who had not been able to get away. Secondary fires set off by the blazing jet fuel damaged and caused the collapse of adjacent buildings, burning and crushing even more people. Nearly 3,000 people died. It took three months for the fires beneath the rubble to be extinguished, and another month before they ceased to smolder.
Firefighters and police officers dug frantically midst the burning and smoldering fires and precarious piles of rubble, desperately seeking lives and, when hope to find survivors failed, to locate remains. Demolition workers, Department of Sanitation workers, and volunteers dug by their sides, breaking down huge blocks of steel and concrete, and carting away the debris to designated piers, and by barge to the re-opened New York City landfill in Fresh Kills, Staten Island. There, Sanitation workers, police officers, and others again sifted the rubble, seeking to locate human remains and preserve evidence of the hijackers' crimes.
Many of these rescue and clean-up workers claim that they suffered injuries by breathing the air fouled by toxins and contaminants from the fires and dust without proper respiratory masks and protective equipment, and have sued the City and Port Authority for their failure to provide safety gear and other acts of alleged negligence. Some of the plaintiffs have alleged that they began work on September 11 or soon thereafter and continued to work at the site. Some plaintiffs alleged that they began working on later dates. Some ceased to work relatively early, and some did not leave until the clean-up ended, in May 2002, a period of approximately eight months. Plaintiffs vary in the specificity of their allegations, in the duration of their exposures, and as to the sites where they worked. In all, there are thirty-five suits and more than twelve hundred plaintiffs that are affected by this decision.1
The events of September 11, 2001 caused Congress to take immediate action to address the financial crisis in the airline industry and the losses suffered by the victims and their families. On September 22, 2001, President Bush signed into law the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act of 2001, Pub.L. No. 107-42, 115 Stat. 230 (2001) (codified at 49 U.S.C. § 40101). The Act was subsequently amended on November 19, 2001 and Jan. 23, 2002. See Pub.L. No. 107-71, 115 Stat. 631 (2001); Pub.L. No. 107-134, 115 Stat. 2435 (2002).
Title IV of the Act, captioned "Victim Compensation," provides alternative modes of procedures that may be used by those who suffered injuries or are legal representatives of people who died as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001. Sections 403 through 407 of the Act provides for the "September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001," to be administered by an appointed Special Master who makes compensation awards according to criteria established generally by the Act and more specifically by regulations promulgated by the Department of Justice. Eligible claimants must have suffered "physical harm or death as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes, and must have been on the planes or at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, or the crash site at Shanksville, Pennsylvania "at the time, or in the immediate aftermath, of September 11, 2001." Act § 405(c). Claimants must waive their right to file a civil action (or to be a party to an action) in any federal or state court, except for suits to recover "collateral source obligations" (for example, insurance or other such items which, under the Act,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation
...court, Plaintiffs filed motions to remand them to state court, which the district court denied. In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 270 F.Supp.2d 357, 360-61 (S.D.N.Y.2003). The district court determined that "claims for respiratory injury based on exposures suffered at the World T......
-
Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. And Development Corp.
...Ins. Co., No. 5:02CV367, 2002 WL 31833646, at *4 (N.D.Ohio June 17, 2002); see also In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 270 F.Supp.2d 357, 362, 2003 WL 21419613, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2003) ("Section 408(b)(1) of Title IV provides for a federal cause of action .... Section 408(b......
-
In re Wtc Disaster Site
...Partially Granting and Partially Denying Motions To Remand Cases to State Court, dated June 20, 2003, see In re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation, 270 F.Supp.2d 357, familiarity with which is assumed. Most of the events are not A. Conditions at the World Trade Center Disaster Site......
-
In re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation
...11, the primary focus of all at the site was rescuing any potential survivors. In re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litig. (Hickey v. Port Authority of N.Y. & N.J.), 270 F.Supp.2d 357, 372 (S.D.N.Y.2003); aff'd in part, dismissed in part by McNally v. The Port Authority, 414 F.3d 352 (2d ......
-
Prometheus Unbound: The Gulf Coast Claims Facility as a Means for Resolving Mass Tort Claims?A Fund Too Far
...415–16. 393. Alexander, supra note 5, at 685; Rabin, supra note 15, at 1850–53. 394. See In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 270 F. Supp. 2d 357, 360 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); see also Eggen, supra note 15, at 417. See generally Rabin, Indeterminate Future Harm, supra note 15. 395. Alexande......