Passa v. Derderian
308 F. Supp. 2d 43, 2004 WL 605213, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5039 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Multiparty, Multiforum, Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2002 (MMTJA), 28 U.S.C. § 1369(b), establishes a mandatory abstention provision, requiring federal courts to abstain from exercising jurisdiction in civil actions arising from mass accidents only if a substantial majority of all plaintiffs and all primary defendants are citizens of a single state, and the claims are primarily governed by that state's laws.
Facts:
- On February 20, 2003, a deadly fire destroyed "The Station" nightclub, located in West Warwick, Rhode Island.
- The fire started during a performance by the rock band Great White, when band members Jack Russell, Mark Kendall, David Filice, Eric Powers, and their tour manager, Daniel Bichele, ignited pyrotechnic devices as part of their act.
- Sparks from these pyrotechnics ignited foam insulation material that had been installed in the club's ceiling and walls for soundproofing purposes.
- The fire quickly spread throughout the establishment, engulfing it in less than three minutes.
- The tragic fire resulted in 100 individuals dead and more than 200 injured, out of approximately 412 people inside the building.
Procedural Posture:
- Numerous lawsuits were filed in both state and federal courts across southern New England in the wake of the fire.
- Passa v. Derderian (C.A. No. 03-148L) and Guindon v. American Foam Corp. (C.A. No. 03-335L) were originally filed in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island.
- Kingsley v. Derderian (C.A. No. 03-208L), Alves v. McLaughlin & Moran, Inc. (M.P. No. 03-70L), and O’Brien v. McLaughlin & Moran, Inc. (M.P. No. 03-71L) were originally filed in Rhode Island Superior Court.
- Defendant Anheuser-Busch removed Kingsley, Alves, and O’Brien from Rhode Island Superior Court to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island.
- In Passa and Guindon, Defendants American Foam and the Derderians filed motions to dismiss the cases for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).
- In Kingsley, Alves, and O’Brien, Defendants American Foam and the Derderians filed motions to remand the cases to state court for lack of jurisdiction or, in the alternative, asked the District Court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1369.
- A Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, representing over 180 potential plaintiffs, filed an amicus submission supporting the jurisdictional position of the Derderians and American Foam, arguing against federal jurisdiction.
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 Multiparty, Multiforum, Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2002 (MMTJA), 28 U.S.C. § 1369, grant federal jurisdiction over consolidated mass tort actions arising from the Station nightclub fire, and, if so, does its mandatory abstention provision, § 1369(b), require the federal district court to abstain from hearing these cases?
Opinions:
Majority - Lagueux, Senior District Judge
Yes, the Multiparty, Multiforum, Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2002 (MMTJA), 28 U.S.C. § 1369, grants federal jurisdiction over these consolidated mass tort actions, and its mandatory abstention provision, § 1369(b), does not require the federal district court to abstain from hearing these cases. The court first determined that original federal jurisdiction was proper under § 1369(a) because the accident involved over 75 deaths at a discrete location and minimal diversity existed between the parties (Rhode Island plaintiffs and defendants from multiple states). Next, the court interpreted § 1369(b) as a mandatory abstention clause, not a jurisdictional limitation, based on the plain meaning of the statutory text "The district court shall abstain" and consistent legislative history. The court emphasized that the section heading "Limitation of jurisdiction" does not override the clear statutory language of abstention. To determine if mandatory abstention was required, the court assessed two key conditions of § 1369(b)(1). First, regarding "the substantial majority of all plaintiffs," the court interpreted "all plaintiffs" to include all potential claimants (those killed or injured) to align with Congress's intent for broad consolidation. Based on available data, Rhode Island residents constituted approximately 44.18% of potential plaintiffs, which the court found did not meet the definition of a "substantial majority" (which should be more than 50%, ideally two-thirds or three-fourths). Second, concerning "the primary defendants are also citizens of a single State," the court defined "primary defendants" as parties facing direct liability, rejecting definitions based on culpability or financial capacity. Since the Great White band members and their tour manager, Daniel Bichele, who are alleged to have started the fire and face direct liability, are residents of California, this condition was not met. As both conditions for mandatory abstention were not satisfied, the court concluded that abstention was not required. The court also affirmed the proper removal of cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(e)(1)(B), allowing removal of actions arising from the same accident where another related case is under § 1369 jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This case represents the first judicial interpretation of the MMTJA, 28 U.S.C. § 1369, a pivotal statute expanding federal jurisdiction over mass accident litigation. The court's ruling clarifies the scope of federal intervention in such cases by definitively interpreting § 1369(b) as a mandatory abstention provision rather than a jurisdictional bar. Its specific definitions of "substantial majority of all plaintiffs" and "primary defendants" establish concrete thresholds for when federal courts must defer to state courts, significantly impacting how future mass torts with multi-state implications will be litigated. This decision reinforces Congress's aim to centralize complex, multi-state disaster litigation in federal court for efficiency, unless the disaster is overwhelmingly localized in terms of parties and governing law.
