DOCSLIB.ORG

United States District Court District of Massachusetts American Waterways Operators, International Association of Independent T

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States District Court District of Massachusetts American Waterways Operators, International Association of Independent T UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) AMERICAN WATERWAYS OPERATORS, ) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ) INDEPENDENT TANKER OWNERS, CHAMBER OF SHIPPING OF AMERICA, ) INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF ) SHIPPING, and INTERNATIONAL GROUP ) OF P&I CLUBS, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action No. 10-10584 DPW ) v. ) DEVAL PATRICK, in his capacity as ) Governor of Massachusetts; and LAURIE ) BURT, in her capacity as Commissioner of the ) Massachusetts Department of Environmental ) Protection, ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT George J. Skelly (No. 546797) C. Jonathan Benner (pro hac vice) NIXON PEABODY LLP Jeffrey Orenstein (pro hac vice) 100 Summer Street REED SMITH LLP Boston, MA 02110 1301 K Street, N.W., Suite 1100 Telephone: 617-345-1000 Washington, DC 20005-3373 Facsimile: 866-294-7517 Telephone: 202-414-9200 [email protected] Facsimile: 202-414-9299 [email protected] [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................3 I. Massachusetts Initiatives to Regulate Tank Vessels.......................................................3 II. The 2009 Act.......................................................................................................................5 ARGUMENT..................................................................................................................................6 I. Standard for Summary Judgment ...................................................................................6 A. Rule 56(c) ................................................................................................................6 B. There Are No Material Facts in Dispute..............................................................7 II. Controlling Preemption Principles...................................................................................8 A. General Preemption Principles.............................................................................8 B. Ray-Locke Framework of PWSA Preemption.....................................................9 III. Federal Law Preempts the 2009 Act ..............................................................................11 A. The 2009 Act’s Indirect Regulation of Preempted Subject Matters Violates the Supremacy Clause..........................................................................11 B. The 2009 Act’s State Pilot Provisions Are Preempted .....................................16 1. 46 U.S.C. § 8501(d) Expressly Preempts the Commonwealth’s State Pilot Rules .......................................................................................16 2. The Commonwealth’s State Pilot Rule is Preempted by Coast Guard Regulations...................................................................................20 C. The 2009 Act’s Notification Provisions Are Preempted...................................22 D. The 2009 Act’s Tug Escort Provisions Are Preempted....................................26 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................30 - i - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases 520 S. Mich. Ave. Assocs., Ltd. v. Shannon, 549 F.3d 1119 (7th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................. 12 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986).................................................................................................................... 6 Anderson v. Pac. Coast S.S. Co., 225 U.S. 187 (1912).................................................................................................................. 17 California Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n. v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272 (1987).................................................................................................................... 8 City of New York v. FCC, 486 U.S. 57 (1988)...................................................................................................................... 8 Central Valley Chrysler-Plymouth v. Calf. Air Resources Bd., No. CV-F-02-5017, 2002 WL 34499459 (E.D. Cal. June 11, 2002)........................................ 14 Charleston & Western Carolina Ry. Co. v. Varnville Furniture Co., 237 U.S. 597 (1915).................................................................................................................. 25 City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal Inc., 411 U.S. 624 (1973).................................................................................................................... 9 Crowley Marine Serv., Inc. v. Maritrans, Inc., 530 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................. 28 Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Corp. v. S. Dakota, 236 F. Supp.2d 989 (D.S.D. 2002) ........................................................................................... 12 Davis v. Barge “TMT” Jacksonville, 484 F. Supp. 52 (M.D. Fla. 1979)............................................................................................. 17 Fidelity Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. De La Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141 (1982).................................................................................................................... 9 Gade v. Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n., 505 U.S. 88 (1992)...................................................................................................................... 9 Grafton & Upton R.R. Co. v. Town of Milford, 337 F. Supp. 2d 233 (D. Mass. 2004)....................................................................................... 12 Hillsborough Cty Fla. V. Automated Med. Labs., 471 U.S. 707 (1985).................................................................................................................... 8 - ii - Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941)...................................................................................................................... 9 Jackson v. Marine Exploration Co., Inc., 583 F.2d 1336 (5th Cir. 1978) ............................................................................................ 17, 18 Law v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 134 F.3d 1438 (10th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................ 16 Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355 (1986).................................................................................................................... 8 Nebraska v. Wyoming, 507 U.S. 584 (1993).................................................................................................................... 6 New York State Conf. of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 668 U.S. 645 (1995).................................................................................................................. 12 Osprey Ship Management, Inc. v. Foster, No. 1:05CV390, 2008 WL 4371376 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 18, 2008)............................................ 19 Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Energy Res. Conservation & Dev. Comm’n, 461 U.S. 190 (1983).................................................................................................................... 9 Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151 (1978).......................................................................................................... passim Seaboard Tug & Barge, Inc. v. Rederi AB/Disa, 213 F.2d 772 (1st Cr. 1954)...................................................................................................... 28 State of Kansas ex rel. Todd v. United States, 995 F.2d 1505 (10th Cir. 1993) ................................................................................................ 12 Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. State Oil & Gas Bd., 474 U.S. 409 (1986).................................................................................................................. 12 United States v. Massachusetts, 440 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D. Mass 2006)................................................................................... passim United States v. Massachusetts, 724 F. Supp. 2d 170 (D. Mass 2010)................................................................................. passim United States v. Massachusetts, 493 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007).................................................................................................. passim United States v. R. I. Insurers’ Insolvency Fund, 80 F.3d 616 (1st Cir. 1996)......................................................................................................... 7 - iii - United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (2000)............................................................................................................. passim Federal Constitution & Statutes U.S. CONST. ART. VI § 1, cl. 2 ........................................................................................................ 8 33 U.S.C. § 1223(a) ........................................................................................................................ 9 33 U.S.C. §§ 1121-1236 ................................................................................................................. 1 33 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq...............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Framework for Preemption Analysis
    A Framework for Preemption Analysis The decisions of the Supreme Court in cases involving preemption of state law by federal statutes have often produced considerable con- fusion' and criticism. 2 This Note argues that those decisions can be rationalized according to the protection afforded by the state law in question. Laws that protect the people inside state borders from physical injury have received the greatest deference from the Court. Laws that protect the people inside state borders from other dangers have received less deference. State laws that purport to protect people mostly outside state borders have received little deference. Recogni- tion of these categories, as they are set out in this Note, can assist courts as they deal with future preemption cases. I. Categories for Preemption Analysis It is useful to distinguish four possible relationships between na- tional and state laws, which may conveniently be called "express pre- emption," "express saving," "prohibition of dutiful conduct," and "hindrance." Express preemption and express saving are direct rela- tionships between national and state law. Express preemption occurs when a national statute expressly forbids state regulation of a certain type or expressly requires that national regulation be exclusive. Ex- press saving is present when a national statute expressly forbids courts to preempt state laws. Prohibition of dutiful conduct and hindrance are indirect relationships, which involve more complex interactions between state and national law. Prohibition of dutiful conduct is present when state law requires someone to breach duties imposed by national law. Hindrance occurs when state law interferes with op- portunities created by national law, or with the performance of federal duties.
    [Show full text]
  • Preemption Under the Controlled Substances Act Robert A
    Journal of Health Care Law and Policy Volume 16 | Issue 1 Article 2 Preemption Under the Controlled Substances Act Robert A. Mikos Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/jhclp Part of the Health Law Commons, Policy Design, Analysis, and Evaluation Commons, Public Policy Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert A. Mikos, Preemption Under the Controlled Substances Act, 16 J. Health Care L. & Pol'y 5 (2013). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/jhclp/vol16/iss1/2 This Conference is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Health Care Law and Policy by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PREEMPTION UNDER THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT ROBERT A. MIKOS States are conducting bold experiments with marijuana law. Since 1996, eighteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized the drug for medical purposes, and two of them have legalized it for recreational purposes as well.1 These states have also promulgated a growing body of civil regulations to replace prohibition. The regulations cover nearly every facet of the marijuana market. Colorado, for example, has adopted more than seventy pages of regulations governing just the distribution of medical marijuana.2 Among many other things, Colorado‘s regulations require medical marijuana vendors to apply for a special Copyright © 2013 by Robert A. Mikos. Professor of Law and Director of the Program in Law & Government, Vanderbilt University Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Volume IX No. 14 Federal Preemption and the Bankruptcy Code
    Federal Preemption and the Bankruptcy Code: At what Point does State Law Cease to Apply during the Claims Allowance Process? 2017 Volume IX No. 14 Federal Preemption and the Bankruptcy Code: At what Point does State Law Cease to Apply during the Claims Allowance Process? Dylan Lackowitz, J.D. Candidate 2018 Cite as: Federal Preemption and the Bankruptcy Code: At what Point does State Law Cease to Apply during the Claims Allowance Process?, 9 ST. JOHN’S BANKR. RESEARCH LIBR. NO. 14 (2017). Introduction Anything you do in bankruptcy can and will be used against you in bankruptcy. Prior to the commencement of a bankruptcy case, perhaps courts should issue this Miranda-esque warning to the parties. At least, if the bankruptcy court had, Plymouth LLC (“Plymouth”) might have saved approximately $800,000 that it spent acquiring a lien against Princeton LP’s (“Princeton”) vacant office park in the Township of Lawrence, New Jersey.1 Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that Plymouth’s claim against Princeton in Princeton’s bankruptcy case was disallowed for violating New Jersey’s tax sale law pursuant to section 502(b)(1) of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”).2 There, Plymouth unsuccessfully argued that the claims allowance process in bankruptcy preempted New Jersey’s tax sale law.3 As this case illustrates, the application of the preemption doctrine in bankruptcy can have a dramatic effect on the outcome of a bankruptcy case. A court’s decision regarding the applicability of preemption in the claims allowance context can mean the difference between a creditor receiving the total value of their claim, or nothing at all.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Preemption of State Tort Claims
    The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law CUA Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions Faculty Scholarship 2001 Federal Preemption of State Tort Claims Marin Roger Scordato The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/scholar Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Marin Roger Scordato, Federal Preemption of State Tort Claims, 35 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1 (2001). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions by an authorized administrator of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. .I University of California U.C. DAVIS LAW REVIEW ' / Davis VOLUME 35 NOVEMBER 2001 NUMBER 1 Federal Preemption of State Tort Claims Marin R. Scordato TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................2 I. INTRODUCTION TO FEDERAL PREEMPTION ........................................9 A. Sources of FederalPreemption ....................................................9 B. Categories of Federal Preemption .............................................11 II. GEIER V. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY ................. 14 III. APPROACHES TO PREEMPTION JURISPRUDENCE ...............................20 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Preemption, the FDA, and Prescription Drugs After Wyeth V
    Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy Volume 25 Issue 2 Symposium On Health Care: Health, Ethics, & Article 19 the Law January 2014 The Other War on Drugs: Federal Preemption, the FDA, and Prescription Drugs after Wyeth v. Levine Joseph F. Petros III Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp Recommended Citation Joseph F. Petros III, The Other War on Drugs: Federal Preemption, the FDA, and Prescription Drugs after Wyeth v. Levine, 25 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 637 (2012). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp/vol25/iss2/19 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES THE OTHER WAR ON DRUGS: FEDERAL PREEMPTION, THE FDA, AND PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AFTER WYETH V. LEVINE JOSEPH F. PETROS 111* INTRODUCTION Amidst the debates over health care reform in the United States, there are several common desires that most Americans share: lower costs, greater availability, and continued innovation. Yet as Americans have fixed their attentions on reform legisla- tion, few outside academia have noticed a recent and potent blow to these desires in one of the major sectors of the health care industry. This is, perhaps, because the blow came from the "least dangerous"' branch of the federal government. The case was Wyeth v. Levine,2 and the issue was the doctrine of federal preemption as it applies to the regulation of prescription drug warning labels by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Preemption in the Dual Banking System: an Overview and Issues for the 116Th Congress
    Federal Preemption in the Dual Banking System: An Overview and Issues for the 116th Congress May 17, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45726 SUMMARY R45726 Federal Preemption in the May 17, 2019 Dual Banking System: An Overview Jay B. Sykes Legislative Attorney and Issues for the 116th Congress Banks play a critical role in the United States economy, channeling money from savers to borrowers and facilitating productive investment. While the nature of lawmakers’ interest in bank regulation has shifted over time, most bank regulations fall into one of three general categories. First, banks must abide by a variety of safety-and-soundness requirements designed to minimize the risk of their failure and maintain macroeconomic stability. Second, banks must comply with consumer protection rules intended to deter abusive practices and provide consumers with complete information about financial products and services. Third, banks are subject to various reporting, recordkeeping, and anti-money laundering requirements designed to assist law enforcement in investigating criminal activity. The substantive content of these requirements remains the subject of intense debate. However, the division of regulatory authority over banks between the federal government and the states plays a key role in shaping that content. In some cases, federal law displaces (or “preempts”) state bank regulations. In other cases, states are permitted to supplement federal regulations with different, sometimes stricter requirements. Because of its substantive implications, federal preemption has recently become a flashpoint in debates surrounding bank regulation. In the American “dual banking system,” banks can apply for a national charter from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) or a state charter from a state’s banking authority.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Preemption of Prescrption Drug Labeling: Antidote for Pharmaceutical Industry Overdosing on State Court Jury Decisions in Products Liability Cases, 22 J
    UIC Law Review Volume 22 Issue 3 Article 5 Spring 1989 Federal Preemption of Prescrption Drug Labeling: Antidote for Pharmaceutical Industry Overdosing on State Court Jury Decisions in Products Liability Cases, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 629 (1989) John F. Del Giorno Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview Part of the Common Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Consumer Protection Law Commons, Food and Drug Law Commons, Health Law and Policy Commons, Legislation Commons, Medical Jurisprudence Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation John F. Del Giorno, Federal Preemption of Prescrption Drug Labeling: Antidote for Pharmaceutical Industry Overdosing on State Court Jury Decisions in Products Liability Cases, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 629 (1989) https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview/vol22/iss3/5 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by UIC Law Open Access Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UIC Law Review by an authorized administrator of UIC Law Open Access Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENTS FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG LABELING: ANTIDOTE FOR PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY OVERDOSING ON STATE COURT JURY DECISIONS IN PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASES I. INTRODUCTION As a society, Americans insist on the best available medications to treat those suffering from illness. In response to this demand, Congress has entrusted the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")' with the responsibility to ensure that drugs marketed in the United States are both safe and effective.' Pursuant to the fed- eral Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act("FDCA"),3 the FDA is the sole decision maker concerning the safety and efficacy of drugs marketed in the United States.4 Ultimately, every aspect of drug formulation, production, testing, and labeling is overseen through the compre- hensive regulatory efforts of this agency.5 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Preemption and the Relationship Between Public Law 280 and Federalism
    ARTICLES INHERENTLY OR EXCLUSIVELY FEDERAL: CONSTITUTIONAL PREEMPTION AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC LAW 280 AND FEDERALISM Kyle S. Conway ABSTRACT The basic principles of Indian-law jurisprudence often appear disconnected with basic principles of American constitutional law. Indian law, however, has a special significance to important issues of state and federal power. This Article seeks to build on the work of prior scholars who have sought to connect Indian law to American constitutional values. Public Law 280 is a federal law that gives states control over certain aspects of Indian affairs that were traditionally within the scope of the federal government. This Article argues that Public Law 280 is unconstitutional under a doctrine of constitutional preemption. Constitutional preemption is grounded in the system of overlapping sovereignty that forms the structure of the Constitution and should be understood as prohibiting the federal government from delegating inherently and exclusively federal powers to the states. The power to manage Indian affairs is entrusted exclusively to the federal government, and Congress cannot constitutionally delegate it to the states. The constitutional difficulties raised by Public Law 280 are particularly relevant in an era when issues of federalism are at the forefront of legal discussion. It is often accepted that courts may limit the federal government’s authority to exercise powers reserved to the states, but we should also take seriously the idea that courts may limit the states’ authority to exercise powers reserved to the federal government. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1324 I. BACKGROUND.......................................................................... 1326 A. Federal and State Authority over Indian Affairs Prior to the Passage of PL-280 .............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Does Federal Law Preempt State Marijuana Law?
    FEATURE | CANNABIS LAW Does Federal Law Preempt State Marijuana Law? Analyzing the “Confl ict” BY LUKE C. WATERS 34 | COLORADO LAWYER | DECEMBER 2018 is article considers whether federal law preempts state marijuana legalization laws. n 1996, California e ected a sea change in v. National Collegiate Athletic Association,14 a seem clear, they are subject to a number of American jurisprudence when its voters recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that appears inferences and exceptions. State marijuana approved the Compassionate Use Act,1 to have direct implications on state legalization; legalization, federal marijuana prohibition, and the rst state-backed, fully implemented, and the e ect of Gonzales v. Raich,15 the Supreme the escalating con ict between the two must Icomprehensive medical marijuana program2 Court’s landmark medical marijuana decision. be analyzed against this background. in the United States. Since then, 31 other states as well as Washington, D.C., Guam, and Puerto Federal Preemption Positive Confl ict: A Two-Prong Rico have followed suit, adopting comprehensive Federal preemption is based on U.S. Const. art. Analysis medical marijuana programs of their own.3 In XI, commonly known as the Supremacy Clause, Congress created the CSA with a preemption 2012, Colorado and Washington upped the ante which states “the Laws of the United States . provision, outlining its intent pertaining to the by legalizing recreational marijuana for use by shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the relationship between federal and state laws on all adults, with seven states since following their Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, the subject of narcotics enforcement.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bugaboo of Federal Preemption
    Florida State University Law Review Volume 3 Issue 2 Article 2 Spring 1975 The Bugaboo of Federal Preemption: An Analysis of the Relationship between a Federal Collective Bargaining Statute for Employees of State and Local Governments and State Statutes Affecting Such Employees Robert H. Chanin Elise T. Snyder Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert H. Chanin & Elise T. Snyder, The Bugaboo of Federal Preemption: An Analysis of the Relationship between a Federal Collective Bargaining Statute for Employees of State and Local Governments and State Statutes Affecting Such Employees, 3 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 236 (1975) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol3/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE BUGABOO OF FEDERAL PREEMPTION: AN ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A FEDERAL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING STATUTE FOR EMPLOYEES OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND STATE STATUTES AFFECTING SUCH EMPLOYEES ROBERT H. CHANIN* AND ELISE T. SNYDER** TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ....... ............... 236 II. THE NATURE OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE . ....... 238 III. THE BASIS OF THE PREEMPTION DOCTRINE . ...... 239 IV. THE PRIVATE SECTOR PRECEDENTS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PUBLIC SECTOR . ....... 241 A. State Statutes in Conflict with the Federal Statute . 243 B. State Collectite BargainingStatutes .. ....... .. 243 C. State Statutes Establishing Terms and Conditions of Public Employment ... .......... 244 V.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the DISTRICT of MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION Before the Court Are Two Motions
    Case 1:17-cv-00009-SPW Document 18 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION SCOTT LEE, CV 17-9-BLG-SPW-TJC Plaintiffs, FINDINGS AND vs. RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, a MAGISTRATE JUDGE Delaware Corporation, Defendants. Before the Court are two motions: (1) Defendant BNSF Railway Company’s (“BNSF”) Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (“12(b)(6) Motion”) (Doc. 3); and (2) Plaintiff Scott Lee’s Motion to Remand (“Remand Motion”) (Doc. 9). Having reviewed the motions and attendant briefing, the Court makes the following findings and recommendations. I. Pertinent Facts The Court accepts as true the facts contained in Lee’s Complaint and Jury Demand (“Complaint”) (Doc. 6) for the purposes of the instant motions. See Kearney v. Direct Buy Associates, Inc., 2014 WL 12588636, *5 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2014) (citations omitted) (“Because a motion to remand is analogous to a motion to dismiss…the court accepts the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint as true.”). 1 Case 1:17-cv-00009-SPW Document 18 Filed 08/14/17 Page 2 of 14 Lee has been an employee of BNSF since 1976. (Doc. 6 at ¶ 6.) On or about August 12, 2013, while working as a hostler, Lee suffered an injury when he attempted to release a locomotive handbrake. (Id. at ¶ 13.) Lee contends that “[t]he handbrake was unsafe, defective, not in proper working order or failed to work as intended.” (Id. at ¶ 14.) Lee reported the defective handbrake to BNSF.
    [Show full text]
  • The Truth About Torts: Using Agency Preemption to Undercut Consumer Health and Safety by William Funk, Sidney Shapiro, David Vladeck and Karen Sokol
    The Truth about Torts: Using Agency Preemption to Undercut Consumer Health and Safety by William Funk, Sidney Shapiro, David Vladeck and Karen Sokol A Center for Progressive Reform White Paper September 2007 Executive Summary certain actions, while tort law provides compensation after people are injured or killed by socially In recent years, the Bush administration has launched unreasonable actions. Because of these fundamental an unprecedented aggressive campaign to persuade the differences, tort law generally does not conflict with courts to preempt state tort actions. Under the federal positive law—even when state positive law Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, Congress may might. In fact, tort law’s protective effects by and large choose to preempt state law from operating, and where complement those of positive law. Congress’s intent is not clear, it is up to the judiciary to determine if Congress intended preemption. In the early 1990s, the Supreme Court departed from its traditional approach to preemption by ignoring the Widespread preemption of state tort law would differences between tort law and positive law in significantly undermine, if not eliminate, the rights of analyzing whether state tort law had been preempted. individuals to seek redress for injuries caused by In more recent cases, the Court has vacillated between irresponsible and dangerous business practices and to these approaches, although the Court appears to have hold manufacturers and others accountable for such returned to its traditional interpretation in its latest socially unreasonable conduct. preemption case involving state tort law. At the same time, the administration has made a The Bush administration has sought to take advantage concerted effort to weaken federal health and safety of the Court’s vacillation by pushing the lower courts standards, making state tort law protections all the more away from the traditional approach that properly vital.
    [Show full text]