Robert Johnson v. American Towers, LLC
781 F.3d 693
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- Captain Robert Johnson, a South Carolina prison guard, was shot multiple times in 2010; a federal investigation concluded inmates ordered the attack using a contraband cell phone and an outside co-conspirator pleaded guilty to murder-for-hire.
- The Johnsons sued multiple wireless carriers and tower owners in state court for negligence and loss of consortium, alleging defendants knew inmates used contraband phones via their networks and failed to prevent it.
- Defendants removed to federal court asserting federal-question jurisdiction (complete preemption by the Communications Act) and diversity jurisdiction; the Johnsons moved to remand.
- The district court denied remand, found both federal-question and diversity jurisdiction, and dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) on grounds of express and conflict preemption and implausibility; dismissal was without prejudice.
- On appeal the Fourth Circuit held the Communications Act does not effectuate complete preemption (so § 1331 removal on that ground was improper) but affirmed denial of remand because diversity jurisdiction existed after two non-diverse defendants were deemed fraudulently joined (one because it lacked any license in the relevant county; the other because § 332 preempted the claim against it).
- On the merits the Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal: (1) § 332 and related FCC authority expressly preempt common-law duties that would burden wireless coverage; (2) conflict preemption bars state duties that would require blocking or jamming in violation of federal law; and (3) the complaint failed to plead facts making liability plausible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Communications Act completely preempts state-law tort claims (federal-question jurisdiction) | Johnsons: Communications Act and §§ 201/207 create the exclusive federal remedy, so state claims are completely preempted | Defendants: Communications Act does not clearly displace state remedies; savings clause preserves common-law claims | Court: No complete preemption; § 414 (savings clause) and absence of an exclusive federal cause of action defeat complete preemption |
| Whether district court nevertheless had diversity jurisdiction (fraudulent joinder) | Johnsons: Two non-diverse defendants defeat diversity | Defendants: Non-diverse defendants were fraudulently joined (no possibility of recovery) | Court: Diversity jurisdiction exists because one non-diverse defendant had no license in the county and the other (tower owner) was preempted from liability |
| Whether Communications Act (§ 332) expressly preempts the Johnsons' state-law claims on the merits | Johnsons: State tort duty should apply to tower owners and carriers | Defendants: A common-law duty forcing monitoring/blocking would burden wireless coverage and conflict with FCC authority | Court: § 332 preempts common-law duties that would obstruct or burden wireless-network provision; claim preempted |
| Whether claims are conflict-preempted or implausible | Johnsons: State law does not conflict with federal prohibitions; carriers could deactivate phones without jamming | Defendants: State-imposed duty would require blocking/jamming in violation of § 333 and FCC policy; complaint lacks specific facts | Court: Conflict preemption bars any duty that requires blocking/jamming (physical impossibility). Complaint also fails pleading standards (no specifics), so dismissal proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Lontz v. Tharp, 413 F.3d 435 (4th Cir.) (removal and subject-matter jurisdiction review standards)
- Pinney v. Nokia, Inc., 402 F.3d 430 (4th Cir.) (§ 332 preemption of state laws that burden wireless coverage)
- Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct.) (complete preemption requires a pre-existing federal cause of action and clear congressional intent)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (Sup. Ct.) (complete preemption transforms state claims into federal ones when Congress so intends)
- Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (Sup. Ct.) (complete preemption doctrine and congressional intent requirement)
- Marcus v. AT&T Corp., 138 F.3d 46 (2d Cir.) (complete preemption is narrow)
- In re NOS Commc'ns, 495 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir.) (savings clause undermines argument for complete field preemption in telecom context)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (Sup. Ct.) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Sup. Ct.) (pleading must allege factual content permitting reasonable inference of liability)
- Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (Sup. Ct.) (conflict preemption where compliance with both laws is a physical impossibility)