Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc.
200 F.3d 335 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Price Anderson Act grants exclusive federal jurisdiction over any public liability action arising from a "nuclear incident," which broadly includes tort claims for injuries resulting from ongoing activities like uranium mining and processing, not just singular, catastrophic events.
Facts:
- Over 1,600 plaintiffs, led by Crecension Acuna and Rebecca Garcia, alleged they suffered personal injuries and property damage from the activities of several defendant companies involved in uranium mining and processing in Texas.
- Some plaintiffs were employees who worked directly in the uranium mines or processing plants.
- Other plaintiffs alleged exposure to radiation, uranium dust, or tailings through contact with family members who worked at the facilities or through environmental pathways like wind and groundwater.
- The plaintiffs alleged a wide range of injuries resulting from exposures of varying durations and intensities, spanning a period of up to forty years.
Procedural Posture:
- Over 1,600 plaintiffs filed two separate lawsuits in Texas state court against various uranium mining and processing companies.
- Defendants removed both cases to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asserting federal jurisdiction under the Price Anderson Act.
- The plaintiffs objected, but the district court asserted jurisdiction.
- The district court issued pre-discovery 'Lone Pine' orders requiring plaintiffs to provide expert affidavits detailing the specifics of each individual claim.
- After finding the plaintiffs' submitted affidavits failed to comply with the orders, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal.
- The district court adopted the recommendation and dismissed both cases for failure to comply with its pre-discovery orders.
- Plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the district court's assertion of jurisdiction and its dismissal of their cases to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Price Anderson Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2210(n)(2), grant federal courts original jurisdiction over state-law tort claims for personal injuries allegedly caused by uranium mining and processing activities?
Opinions:
Majority - Benavides, Circuit Judge
Yes. The Price Anderson Act grants federal courts original jurisdiction over these claims. The Act's plain language, specifically the 1988 amendment that replaced "extraordinary nuclear occurrence" with "nuclear incident," was intended by Congress to expand federal jurisdiction. A "nuclear incident" is defined broadly to include any occurrence causing personal injury from the hazardous properties of atomic materials, which encompasses ongoing exposures from uranium mining and processing. The court rejected the plaintiffs' narrow interpretation, finding that uranium extraction is an integral part of the nuclear industry and that claims arising from it fall squarely within the Act's jurisdictional grant. Therefore, the defendants' removal of the cases from state to federal court was proper.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the broad jurisdictional reach of the Price Anderson Act, confirming that its scope extends to the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including the initial stages of uranium mining and processing. By interpreting "nuclear incident" to include long-term or ongoing exposures rather than just singular accidents, the court reinforces Congress's intent to centralize litigation related to the nuclear industry in federal courts. This precedent makes it exceedingly difficult for plaintiffs to keep tort claims related to nuclear materials in state court, ensuring such cases are governed by a uniform federal framework. The opinion also affirms the district courts' discretionary power to use case management tools like 'Lone Pine' orders to require plaintiffs in mass tort cases to substantiate their claims with specific evidence early in the litigation process.
