15 F.4th 714
6th Cir.2021Background
- Plaintiffs are four residents (one deceased, represented by estate) living near the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Pike County, Ohio; they allege long‑term releases of radioactive materials (uranium, neptunium, plutonium, etc.) causing bodily injury, cancers, death, and property damage and seek class certification.
- Plaintiffs sued in Ohio state court in 2019 raising seven state‑law claims (including trespass) and disavowed any Price‑Anderson Act claim.
- Defendants removed under the Price‑Anderson Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2210(n)(2), which authorizes removal and treats any ‘‘public liability’’ suit arising from a ‘‘nuclear incident’’ as a federal action where state law supplies substantive rules unless inconsistent with the Act.
- The district court held the Act preempted plaintiffs’ state‑law claims (relying on this circuit’s Nieman decision) and dismissed because plaintiffs declined to proceed under the Price‑Anderson Act; remand motion was denied as moot.
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit reviewed preemption, dismissal for failure to state a claim, and denial of remand de novo and affirmed the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Price‑Anderson Act preempts plaintiffs’ state‑law claims | Plaintiffs: alleged harms are not a statutory "nuclear incident" and thus fall outside the Act | Defendants: allegations of radioactive releases and injury fit the Act’s definitions, so claims are removable and preempted | Held: Claims fit the Act’s definition of a "nuclear incident" and are preempted under Price‑Anderson (affirmed) |
| Whether removal was proper / remand should be granted | Plaintiffs: suit belongs in state court; Act does not apply | Defendants: Act expressly authorizes removal of public liability actions arising from a nuclear incident | Held: Removal was proper; remand denial affirmed |
| Whether ongoing/serial releases (vs. single event) fall within "any occurrence" / "nuclear incident" | Plaintiffs: Act covers only a single incident; ongoing releases are excluded | Defendants: "Occurrence" is broad; ongoing releases can constitute a nuclear incident | Held: "Occurrence" can encompass ongoing/periodic releases; Act applies |
| Whether dismissal was proper given plaintiffs disavowed Price‑Anderson claim | Plaintiffs: prefer state remedies and declined to sue under Act | Defendants: where claims arise from a nuclear incident, plaintiffs must proceed under the Act or not at all | Held: Because plaintiffs refused to proceed under Price‑Anderson, dismissal for failure to state a cognizable claim was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Nieman v. NLO, Inc., 108 F.3d 1546 (6th Cir. 1997) (Price‑Anderson preempts state causes of action for public liability arising from a nuclear incident)
- El Paso Nat. Gas Co. v. Neztsosie, 526 U.S. 473 (1999) (discussing 1988 Price‑Anderson amendments and federal jurisdiction for nuclear‑incident claims)
- Cook v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 790 F.3d 1088 (10th Cir. 2015) (distinguishing cases where a nuclear incident was alleged but later conceded unprovable; state claims may survive in that posture)
- Silkwood v. Kerr‑McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238 (1984) (Atomic Energy Act did not preempt certain state remedies; background on preemption limits)
- English v. Gen. Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72 (1990) (field‑preemption principles and limits on sweeping displacement of state law)
- Rainer v. Union Carbide Corp., 402 F.3d 608 (6th Cir. 2005) (Price‑Anderson provides an adequate alternative remedy for displaced claims; addresses constitutional challenges)