TMI Litigation Cases Consol. II, In re
| Decision Date | 26 July 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-5315,No. 90-5318,Nos. 90-5312,No. 90-5317,No. 90-5314,No. 90-5316,Nos. 90-5562,No. 90-5313,Nos. 90-5312 and 90-5672,s. 90-5312 and 90-5672,90-5313,90-5314,90-5315,90-5316,90-5317,90-5318,s. 90-5562,s. 90-5312 |
| Citation | 940 F.2d 832 |
| Parties | In re TMI LITIGATION CASES CONSOLIDATED II. BRANNON, James T., et al., v. BABCOCK & WILCOX COMPANY, INC., et al., General Public Utilities Corporation, Metropolitan Edison Company, New Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Pennsylvania Electric Company, Babcock & Wilcox Company, McDermott Incorporated, U.E. & C.-Catalytic, and Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc., Dresser Industries, Appellants inAndrea LEWINTER, Personal Representative of the Estate of Mark Lewinter; v. GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.; Metropolitan Edison Company; Jersey Central Power & Light Co.; Pennsylvania Electric Company; Babcock & Wilcox Company; J. Ray McDermott & Company; Catalytic, Inc.; and Burns & Roe, Inc., General Public Utilities Corporation, Metropolitan Edison Company, New Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Pennsylvania Electric Company, Babcock & Wilcox Company, McDermott Incorporated, Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc., and U.E. & C.-Catalytic, Appellants inPerri C. KIICK; and Edward Kiick, husband and wife v. METROPOLITAN EDISON CO.; General Public Utilities Corp.; and Babcock and Wilcox Company, General Public Utilities Corp., Metropolitan Edison Company, and Babcock & Wilcox Company, Appellants inJohn W. GUMBY, Sr. v. GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.; Metropolitan Edison Company; Jersey Central Power & Light Co.; Pennsylvania Electric Company; Babcock & Wilcox Company; J. Ray McDermott & Company; Catalytic, Inc.; Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc., General Public Utilities Corporation, Metropolitan Edison Company, New Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Pennsylvania Electric Company, Babcock & Wilcox Company, McDermott Incorporated, Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc., and U.E. & C.-Catalytic, Appellants inHarry MONTVILLE; Virginia Montville, in their own right and as parents and natural guardians of plaintiff; Daniel Allen Montville v. GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.; Metropolitan Edison Company; Jersey Central Power & Light Co.; Pennsylvania Electric Company; Babcock & Wilcox Company; J. Ray McDe |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
John R. O'Donnell, Zarwin & Baum, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees, Estate Arthur Tilly, Gertrude Tilly, Vincent Denoncour, Nora Denoncour.
Joseph D. Shein, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee, Perri C. Kiick.
Louis M. Tarasi, Jr., Tarasi & Johnson, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellees, Group A. See Docket Entry in No. 90-5312 for List of Parties.
Arnold Levin (argued), Fred S. Longer, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Philadelphia, Pa., Lee C. Swartz, Sandra L. Meilton, Hepford, Swartz, Menaker & Morgan, Harrisburg, Pa., for appellees, Group B. See Docket Entry in No. 90-5312 for List of Parties.
James R. Adams, Barley, Snyder, Cooper & Barber, Lancaster, Pa., for appellees, Family Style Restaurant, Skiadas Bros., Thomas E. Strauss, Inc., Gettysburg Tours, Inc., Heritage Inns, Inc., Le Smith Wholesale, Lincoln Heritage Inc., Overview Ltd., SMG Investments.
Peter J. Neeson, LaBrum & Doak, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees, Joan A. Kichman, Charles C. Kichman, Matthew C. Kichman, Kandice M. Kichman.
William E. Chillas, Joseph F. Roda, Lancaster, Pa., for appellees, Earl Realty, Inc., Amish Homestead, Inc., One Room Schoolhouse, Homestead Gift Shop, Two Twenty-Two Corp., James Cosgrove, Glass Kitchens, Cherry Lane Mtr. Inn, Richard M. Rutt, Noah N. Martin Co., Cont. Inns of America, Pentidatillo Corp.
John G. Harkins, Jr. (argued), A.H. Wilcox, Ellen Kittredge Scott, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheets, Philadelphia, Pa. (Paul J. Mishkin, Berkeley, Cal., of counsel), for appellants, General Public Utilities Corp., Metropolitan Edison Co., Jersey Central Power & Light Co., Pennsylvania Elec. Co., Babcock & Wilcox Co., McDermott Inc., UE & C-Catalytic, Inc., Burns & Roe Enterprises Inc., Dresser Industries, Inc.
Stuart M. Gerson, Asst. Atty. Gen., James J. West, U.S. Atty., William Kanter, Peter R. Maier (argued), Appellate Staff, Civ. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellant, U.S.
Before MANSMANN, SCIRICA and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
In this matter growing out of the 1979 incident at the Three Mile Island nuclear facility near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, we are asked once again to resolve a confrontation between an assertion of federal jurisdiction over public liability actions by defendants and a challenge to that jurisdiction by plaintiffs who wish to be in the state court system. We previously visited a similar issue in Kiick v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 784 F.2d 490 (3d Cir.1986), and Stibitz v. General Pub. Util. Corp., 746 F.2d 993 (3d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1214, 105 S.Ct. 1187, 84 L.Ed.2d 334 (1985), and concluded there that Congress did not intend that there be a federal cause of action arising under the terms of the Price-Anderson Act (codified in scattered sections of 42 U.S.C.).
Our focus here is on the constitutionality of the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2011 et seq. In the Amendments Act, Congress expressly created a federal cause of action for nuclear accident claims and is alleged to have worked major changes in the landscape of public liability law.
Specifically, our review centers upon a district court order remanding certain public liability actions to the state courts in which they were originally filed or in which they might have been filed. The district court concluded that it lacked federal subject matter jurisdiction over these claims and that remand was appropriate under the terms of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c). 1 The district court reached this decision despite the fact that the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988, which created the federal public liability action, specifies that the federal courts have original jurisdiction over these actions and that public liability actions filed in state courts, which have concurrent jurisdiction, are subject to removal upon the motion of a defendant, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2210(n)(2).
The district court's determination with respect to subject matter jurisdiction rested not on any failure to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of the Amendments Act but upon the court's conclusion that the Amendments Act itself was unconstitutional. Underlying the remand order was the district court's holding that Congress, in purporting to create a federal forum for public liability actions through the Amendments Act, exceeded the authority granted to it by Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.
Because it believed that its order granting the plaintiffs' motion to remand involved a "controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from this order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation," the district court stayed execution of the remand and certified for immediate appeal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b), the following question:
Whether Congress exceeded the scope of Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution by granting federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over public liability actions through the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988.
The defendants, in an abundance of caution, filed petitions for permission to appeal, notices of appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 and petitions for a writ of mandamus...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation
... ... at 894-95, and in Neighborhood Toxic Cleanup Emergency v. Reilly, 716 F.Supp. 828, 833-34 (D.N.J. 1989), cases which, in turn, make reference to a passage from the Joint Conference 780 F. Supp. 1560 Committee Report accompanying the 1986 amendment to § ... ...
-
Krangel v. Crown, Civ. No. 91-0210-R(P).
... ... reasons or for bad — is definitely and distinctly opposed to the institution of this litigation." Swanson v. Traer, 354 U.S. at 116, 77 S.Ct. at 1118 (corporate management refused to bring suit ... However, only one of the many cases cited addresses the precise issue at hand, and then only in dicta. See Bakalis v. Crossland ... ...
-
Heinrich ex rel. Heinrich v. Sweet
... ... , a new federal cause of action supplants the prior state cause of action."); In re TMI Litigation II, 940 F.2d 832, 854 (3d Cir.1991) (noting that "Congress clearly intended to supplant all ... Several reported cases, however, appear to undermine this interpretation of the statute. See Day v. NLO, Inc., 851 ... ...
-
In re Cincinnati Radiation Litigation
... ... " existed in Mitchell because at the time the questioned wiretaps were authorized, some district courts had approved warrantless wiretaps in cases of domestic security. See Long, 929 F.2d at 1114. The Court did not explain when an official would have a "legitimate question" as to the ... ...
-
Tenth Circuit Finds Price-Anderson Act Does Not Preempt Nuisance Claims
...v. Shaw Environment & Infrastructure, Inc., 639 F.3d 186 (5th Cir. 2011)). [10] Id. at 13. [11] In re TMI Litig. Cases Consol., 940 F.2d 832, 854 (3d Cir. 1991) ("After the Amendments Act, no state cause of action based upon public liability exists. A claim growing out of any nuclear in......
-
State and Regional Control of Geological Carbon Sequestration (Part I)
...considerations that would be relevant for carbon sequestration legislation. 274. See, e.g. , In re TMI Litigation Cases Consolidated, 940 F.2d 832, 858-66 (3d Cir. 1991). 275. O’Connor v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 13 F.3d 1090, 1105, 24 ELR 20689 (7th Cir. 1994). 276. See Roberts v. Florida ......
-
Alexandra B. Klass & Elizabeth J. Wilson, Climate Change and Carbon Sequestration: Assessing a Liability Regime for Long-term Storage of Carbon Dioxide
...F.3d 1546, 1551 & n.5 (6th Cir. 1997); O'Conner v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 13 F.3d 1090 (7th Cir. 1994); In re TMI Litig. Cases (TMI II), 940 F.2d 832, 854 (3d Cir. 1991). But see In re Hanford Nuclear Reserv. Litig., 350 F. Supp. 2d 871 (E.D. Wash. 2004) (holding that the Price- Anderson ......