960 F. Supp. 2d 761
E.D. Tenn.2012Background
- This putative class action involves 143 named plaintiffs asserting personal injury/property damage from releases of radioactive, hazardous and toxic substances from Nuclear Fuel Services in Erwin, Tennessee since 1957.
- Action arises under the Atomic Energy Act and Price-Anderson Act’s public liability framework.
- Defendants move to dismiss Counts 2–11 as preempted state-law claims and Count 1 as failure to plead a breach of federal dose limits.
- Chevron challenges personal jurisdiction and argues lack of claims under PA Act; plaintiffs seek leave to amend.
- Court orally heard argument June 28, 2012; motions ripe for disposition; second motion to amend filed by plaintiffs.
- Court dismisses Counts 2–11 as preempted and Count 1 for failure to plead a federal-dose-limit breach; denial of second amendment; personal jurisdiction addressed only briefly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preemption of state-law claims under PA Act | Nieman interpretation; state claims not preempted | PA Act completely preempts state-law public liability claims | Counts 2–11 dismissed as preempted |
| Essential element of public liability action under PA Act | State-law standards may apply or ALARA source | Federal dose limits govern standard of care; breach required | Public liability claim requires breach of federal dose limits; Count 1 dismissed |
| Pleading standard under Twombly/Iqbal for PA Act claim | Allegations suffice under federal standards to plead breach | Conclusory pleadings insufficient | Plaintiffs’ pleadings fail; Count 1 dismissed; second amended complaint denied as futile |
| Personal jurisdiction over Chevron | National service of process supports jurisdiction | Insufficient contacts with Tennessee | Court has jurisdiction under national service provision; denial of Rule 12(b)(2) not necessary for disposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Nieman v. NLO, 108 F.3d 1546, 108 F.3d 1546 (6th Cir.1997) (PA Act preempts state tort claims; new federal action replaces state claims)
- In re Hanford N.R.L., 534 F.3d 986, 534 F.3d 986 (9th Cir.2008) (NRC safety regulations determine duty of care in PA Act actions)
- TMI II, 940 F.2d 832, 940 F.2d 832 (3d Cir.1991) (Federal dose limits establish the duty of care in public liability actions)
- O’Conner v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 13 F.3d 1090, 13 F.3d 1090 (7th Cir.1994) (Federal regulations set the duty of care; state standards preempted)