Lundeen v. Canadian Pacific R. Co.
| Decision Date | 02 July 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 07-1676.,No. 07-1698.,No. 07-1679.,No. 07-1694.,No. 07-1670.,No. 07-1693.,No. 07-1680.,No. 07-1707.,No. 07-1684.,No. 07-1672.,No. 07-1656.,No. 07-1699.,07-1656.,07-1670.,07-1672.,07-1676.,07-1679.,07-1680.,07-1684.,07-1693.,07-1694.,07-1698.,07-1699.,07-1707. |
| Citation | 532 F.3d 682 |
| Parties | Tom LUNDEEN, individually; Nanette Lundeen, individually, and Tom Lundeen and Nanette Lundeen on behalf of, and as parents and natural guardians of M.L., a minor, and Michael Lundeen, Appellants, v. CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY; Canadian Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad Company, Appellees, United States, Intervenor. State of North Dakota; State of Mississippi; State of Indiana; State of Iowa; State of Maryland; State of Minnesota; State of Missouri; State of Montana; State of Nevada; State of Oklahoma; State of South Dakota; State of New Hampshire; State of Utah, Amici Curiae on behalf of Appellants. Rebecca Behnkie, individually, and Rebecca Behnkie on behalf of, and as parent and natural guardian of Nathaniel Behnkie, a minor, Appellant, v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Canadian Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad Company, Appellees, United States, Intervenor. State of North Dakota; State of Mississippi; State of Indiana; State of Iowa; State of Maryland; State of Minnesota; State of Missouri; State of Montana; State of Nevada; State of Oklahoma; State of South Dakota; State of New Hampshire; State of Utah, Amici Curiae on behalf of Appellants. Larry Crabbe; Carol Crabbe, Appellants, v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Canadian Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad Company, Appellees, United States, Intervenor. State of North Dakota; State of Mississippi; State of Indiana; State of Iowa; State of Maryland; State of Minnesota; State of Missouri; State of Montana; State of Nevada; State of Oklahoma; State of South Dakota; State of New Hampshire; State of Utah, Amici Curiae on behalf of Appellants. Denise Duchsherer; Leo Duchsherer; Appellants, v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Canadian Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad Company, Appellees, United States, Intervenor. State of North Dakota; State of Mississippi; State of Indiana; State of Iowa; State of Maryland; State of Minnesota; State of Missouri; State of Montana; State of Nevada; State of Oklahoma; State of South Dakota; State of New Hampshire; State of Utah, Amici Curiae on behalf of Appellants. Jo Ann Flick, Appellant, v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Canadian Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad Company, Appellees, United States, Intervenor. State of North Dakota; State of Mississippi; State of Indiana; State of Iowa; State of Maryland; State of Minnesota; State of Missouri; State of Montana; State of Nevada; State of Oklahoma; State of South Dakota; State of New Hampshire; State of Utah, Amici Curiae on behalf of Appellants. Leo Gleason, Appellant, v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Canadian Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad Company, Appellees, United States, Intervenor. State of North Dakota; State of Mississippi; State of Indiana; State of Iowa; State of Maryland; State of Minnesota; State of Missouri; State of Montana; State of Nevada; State of Oklahoma; State of South Dakota; State of New Hampshire; State of Utah, Amici Curiae on behalf of Appellants. Mary Beth Gross, individually, and Mary Beth Gross on behalf of, and as parent and natural guardian of Brett Gross, a minor, Appellant, v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Canadian Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad Company, Appellees, United States, Intervenor. State of North Dakota; State of Mississippi; State of Indiana; State of Iowa; State of Maryland; State of Minnesota; State of Missouri; State of Montana; State of Nevada; State of Oklahoma; State of South Dakota; State of New Hampshire; State of Utah, Amici Curiae on behalf of Appellants. Bobby Smith; Mary Smith, Appellants, v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Canadian Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad Company, Appellees, United States, Intervenor. State of North Dakota; State of Mississippi; State of Indiana; State of Iowa; State of Maryland; State of Minnesota; State of Missouri; State of Montana; State of Nevada; State of Oklahoma; State of South Dakota; State of New Hampshire; State of Utah, Amici Curiae on behalf of Appellants. Rachelle Todosichuk, Appellant, v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Canadian Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad Company, Appellees, United States, Intervenor. State of North Dakota; State of Mississippi; State of Indiana; State of Iowa; State of Maryland; State of Minnesota; State of Missouri; State of Montana; State of Nevada; State of Oklahoma; State of South Dakota; State of New Hampshire; State of Utah, Amici Curiae on behalf of Appellants. Melissa Todd, Appellant, v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Canadian Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad Company, Appellees, United States, Intervenor. State of North Dakota; State of Mississippi; State of Indiana; State of Iowa; State of Maryland; State of Minnesota; State of Missouri; State of Montana; State of Nevada; State of Oklahoma; State of South Dakota; State of New Hampshire; State of Utah, Amici Curiae on behalf of Appellants. Ray Lakoduk, Appellant, v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Canadian Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad Company, Appellees, United States, Intervenor. State of North Dakota; State of Mississippi; State of Indiana; State of Iowa; State of Maryland; State of Minnesota; State of Missouri; State of Montana; State of Nevada; State of Oklahoma; State of South Dakota; State of New Hampshire; State of Utah, Amici Curiae on behalf of Appellants. Mark Nisbet; Sandra Nisbet, Appellants, v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Canadian Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad Company, Appellees, United States, Intervenor. State of North Dakota; State of Mississippi; State of Indiana; State of Iowa; State of Maryland; State of Minnesota; State of Missouri; State of Montana; State of Nevada; State of Oklahoma; State of South Dakota; State of New Hampshire; State of Utah, Amici Curiae on behalf of Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
on the brief, Fargo, ND, for Appellants.
Timothy Robert Thornton, argued, Kevin M. Decker and Jonathan P. Schmidt, on the brief, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellees.
Before BYE, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In Lundeen v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co., 447 F.3d 606, 615 (8th Cir.2006) (Lundeen I), we determined the above-captioned lawsuits, initially filed in state court, were preempted by 49 U.S.C. § 20106 of the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA). On remand, the district court dismissed the lawsuits. The Lundeens and other appellants (hereinafter the Lundeens) thereafter filed the instant appeals. While these appeals were pending, Congress amended § 20106. The amendment directly addresses the preemptive effect of § 20106, and if applicable here, would allow these cases to proceed in state court. Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CP) challenges the amendment on several constitutional grounds. We conclude the amendment is constitutional, and therefore vacate Lundeen I and remand these cases to the district court with directions to further remand them to state court.
On January 18, 2002, a CP freight train derailed near Minot, North Dakota, and caused the release of more than 220,000 gallons of anhydrous ammonia into the air, exposing the area's population to a cloud of toxic gas, causing many people to suffer from permanent respiratory disease and eye damage. Many of the injured people filed a class action suit in North Dakota federal district court. Some, however, retained individual counsel and filed suit in Minnesota state court. These consolidated appeals involve a group of the individual lawsuits filed in Minnesota state court.
The class action venued in North Dakota federal district court was ultimately dismissed on the pleadings upon the district court concluding the claims were preempted by § 20106. See Mehl v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd., 417 F.Supp.2d 1104, 1116-18 (D.N.D.2006). The claims in Minnesota were resolved less consistently, with some being settled, some being resolved in favor of CP on the preemption issue, and still others being resolved against CP on the preemption issue and proceeding in state court.
CP removed a discrete group of the Minnesota cases — those brought by the Lundeens — to Minnesota federal district court. The district court determined the Lundeens' original complaints alleged a federal cause of action by making a reference to "United States law," creating federal question jurisdiction and making removal to federal court proper. See Lundeen v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., 342 F.Supp.2d 826, 829-31 (D.Minn.2004). Subsequent to such ruling, however, the district court allowed the Lundeens to amend their complaints to delete the reference to "United States law," thereby dropping the federal claim and erasing the basis for federal question jurisdiction. After allowing the complaints to be amended, the district court concluded the cases should be remanded to Minnesota state court. Lundeen v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., 2005 WL 563111 at * 1 (D.Minn. March 9, 2005).
CP appealed the ruling to this appellate court. We decided federal question jurisdiction was present based upon another ground, that is, preemption under § 20106. Lundeen I, 447 F.3d at 615. The cases were thereafter remanded to district court in which the court held federal preemption doomed the Lundeen cases not only on the question of federal versus state jurisdiction, but also on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gauthier v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.
...Clarification, on appeal of one of the very cases that Congress cited as its impetus for passing the amendment. Lundeen, 532 F.3d 682 (8th Cir.2008) (Lundeen II), rehearing denied by Lundeen v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., 550 F.3d 747 (8th Cir.2008). However, the Lundeen panel did not discuss th......
-
Johnson v. MFA Petroleum Co.
...precedent of this circuit set forth in Lundeen v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., 447 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 2006), vacated on other grounds by 532 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2008). The statute at issue here exemplifies these principles. The federal Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA) regulates the testing......
-
Carter v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.
...safety standards imposed by a railroad's own rules, certain state laws, or federal regulations.” Id. (quoting Lundeen v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., 532 F.3d 682, 690 (8th Cir. 2008) ).Next, Plaintiffs reject Defendants' specific preemption arguments aimed at Plaintiffs' claims for negligent fai......
-
Johnson v. MFA Petroleum Co.
...precedent of this circuit set forth in Lundeen v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., 447 F.3d 606 (8th Cir.2006), vacated on other grounds by532 F.3d 682 (8th Cir.2008). The statute at issue here exemplifies these principles. The federal Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA) regulates the testing an......
-
Railroad tort liability after the "Clarifying Amendment:" are railroads still protected by preemption?
...at http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2004/040309.htm. (77) Id. (78) Mehl, 417 F. Supp.2d 1104; Lundeen I, 447 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 2006), rev'd 532 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2008) was originally filed in Minnesota state court, then removed to the federal courts on the preemption grounds. Id. at 611, (79)......