933 F. Supp. 2d 1179
E.D. Mo.2013Background
- Plaintiffs sue in two related actions for damages under the PAA and state tort claims for decades-long exposure to radioactive materials near St. Louis, Missouri (1943–1973).
- Actions involve 13 Plaintiffs and 8 Defendants in one suit, and 16 Plaintiffs and the same 8 Defendants in the other.
- Defendants include Mallinckrodt, MI Holdings, COVIDien and Cotter, with AFC and Citigroup also named.
- Alleged radioactive contamination originated at the SLDS/SLAPS/HISS sites and spread via haul routes to Vicinity Properties, Coldwater Creek, and nearby communities.
- Plaintiffs allege exposure caused cancer and other injuries; Count I is a public liability action under the PAA, Counts II–VIII are state-law claims.
- Court considers motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, plus personal jurisdiction challenges against AFC and Citigroup; court grants some motions and allows amendment for PAA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the PAA preemptive of state-law claims and what is the applicable standard of care? | Plaintiffs argue PAA incorporates state standards and federal dose limits; preemption does not bar state tort theories. | Defendants contend PAA preempts state-law claims and imposes federal-dose-based duties. | Count I may proceed with amended pleading; Count II–VIII dismissed as preempted; standard of care aligned with federal dose limits for PAA claims. |
| Are Counts II–VIII pleadingly sufficient under Rule 8? | Plaintiffs argue allegations are sufficient to survive dismissal and discovery may flesh out specifics. | Defendants claim the complaints are conclusory and fail to attribute acts to particular defendants. | Counts II–VIII dismissed; amended pleadings allowed for Count I. |
| What is the applicable statute of limitations for the PAA claims? | Plaintiffs assert accrual and limitations are unsettled and could involve federal law. | Defendants argue Missouri’s five-year personal injury limit applies. | Missouri five-year limit applies to PAA claims; still, Counts II–VIII dismissed; amended Count I may reassert. |
| Do AFC and Citigroup have personal jurisdiction over the actions? | Plaintiffs contend jurisdiction exists through corporate relationships and successors-in-interest. | AFC and Citigroup submit lack of sufficient contacts; declarations show no basis for jurisdiction. | Personal jurisdiction over AFC and Citigroup is lacking; motions granted. |
| Should plaintiffs be allowed to amend their complaints? | Amendment would cure pleading deficiencies and preserve justice. | No amendment would avoid dismissal if claims remain invalid. | Plaintiffs granted until May 10, 2013 to amend Count I; Counts II–VIII remain dismissed without prejudice to refile after amended complaints. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cotroneo v. Shaw Env’t & Infrastructure, Inc., 639 F.3d 186 (5th Cir.2011) (public liability action under PAA; state-law standards typically control unless inconsistent with PAA)
- Corcoran v. N.Y. Power Auth., 202 F.3d 530 (2d Cir.1999) (accrual and limitations in PAA context; impact on preemption issues)
- Cook v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 618 F.3d 1127 (10th Cir.2010) (federal dose limits define duty of care in radiation injury cases)
- Adkins v. Chevron Corp., — (—) (discussed as circuit consensus on preemption; cited for preemption framework (WL reported))
- Lombardi, Inc. v. Smithfield, 11 A.3d 1180 (Del. 1989) (irreparable harm analysis (example format))