FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT D e c e m be r 6, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 12353 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 3 0 2 - C V- T - 2 6 - T GW D O N N A H A N D , i nd i vi du al l y and as pers on al re pres ent at i ve of O p a l O . H a n d ’s e s ta te , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, JO H N K E IT H H A N D , i n d i v i d u al l y a s s o n o f O p a l H a n d , JU L IE A . H A N D , i n d i v i d u al l y a s d au g h te ro f

O p a l H a n d , P la in tif f s , v ersu s C A R G I L L F E R T I L I Z E R , I N C ., a .k .a . G a r d in ie rI n c ., a .k .a . E a s t T a m p aC h e m ic a l P la n t, a .k .a . U .S . P h o s p h o r ic , C A R G IL L , IN C . , p aren tco m p an y o f C a r g ill F e rtiliz e r , I n c ., C A R G I L L F E R T I L I Z E R , L L C , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .2 ________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( D e c e m be r6, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M : D on na H and, John K ei th H and, and Jul i e A . H and, proceedi ng pro se, appeal the di s m i s s a l of

the i rc om pl a i nta ga i ns tC ar gi l l F e r t i l i z e r , I nc . , C a r gi l l , I nc . , a nd C a r gi l l F e rt i l i z e r , L L C ( c ol l e c t i ve l y C a r gi l l ) , f orthe w r ongf

ul de a th of

O pa l H a nd f r om r a di a t i on e xpos ur e . B e c aus e the di s tr i c tc our tc orr e c t l y c onc l ude d tha tthe c la im s o f th e H a n d s w e r e p r e e m p te d b y f e d e r a l la w a n d th e irc o m p la in t f a ile d to s ta te ac la im u n d e rth e P r ic e - A n d e r s o n A c t, w e a f f irm th e d is m is s a l o f

th e ir c o m p la in t. I . B AC KG RO UN D T he H a nds s ue d C a r gi l l i n F l or i das t a t e c our ta nd a l l e ge d tha tO pa l H a nd di ed fr om l eukem i a c ause d b y e xp osure t o radi at i on fr om the cl othi ng of her hus ba nd, L e on J oe l H a nd, w ho w a s e m pl oy e d a ta n ur a ni um e xtr a c t i on pl a ntof C a r gi l l . C a r gi l l r e m ove d the a c t i on t o f e de r a l c our ton the gr ound tha tthe com pl ai ntw as pree m pt ed by the P ri ce -A nd er son A ctand the fe dera l court s had excl usi ve j uri sdi ct i on . S ee 42 U . S . C . §§ 20 14 (hh), 22 10 (n)( 2). C ar gi l l al so m ov ed3

t o di s m i s s the c om pl a i ntf orf a i l ur e t o s t a t e ac l a i m . T he H a nds m ove d t o r e m a nd th e a c tio n to s ta te c o u rt a n d o p p o s e d C a r g ill’s m o tio n to d is m is s . T he di stri ctcourtrul ed thatthe H ands’ cl ai m s w er e pre em pt ed by the P ri ce A nde r s on A c ta nd di s m i s s e d the c om pl a i nt“ w i thoutpr e j udi c e t o a l l ow i ng [ the p l ai n t i ffs] an o p p o rtu n i ty t o am en d . ” T h e d i stri ctco u rtg ran t ed th e H an d s 1 7 d ays unt i l A pr i l 8, 2005, t o a m e nd the i rc om pl a i nt , a f t e rw hi c h the c om pl a i nt , i f not a m e nde d, w oul d be di s m i s s e d w i th pr e j udi c e . B e c aus e the H a nds di d nota m e nd thei r c om pl ai ntw i thi n the t i m e a l l ow ed by the di stri ctcourt , the order of di sm i ss al w ith o u t p r e

ju d ic e b e c a m e f

in a l o n A p r il 8 , 2 0 0 5 . S e e B r ie h le rv . C ity o f M ia m i, 92 6 F . 2d 10 01 , 10 03 (11th C i r. 19 91 ). T he di stri ctcourtent er ed another order decl ar i ng the ca se di sm i ss ed w i th p re j ud i ce on A pri l 12 , 20 05 , and ent er ed ju d g m e n t f

o rC a r g ill o n A p r il 1 3 , 2 0 0 5 .

I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW W e r evi ew the deni al of a m ot i on t o rem and d e nov o. V al di vi es o v . A t l as A ir ., Inc. , 30 5 F . 3d 12 83 , 12 84 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). W e a l so re vi ew the di sm i ss al of a c om pl a i ntf

orf a i l ur e t o s t a t e ac l a i m de novo. S i l vav. B i e l uc h, 351 F . 3d 1045, 1 0 4 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . I I I . DI S CUS S I ON T he H ands m ake three ar gu m ent s on app ea l : (1) the di stri ctcourterre d4

w he n i tde ni e d the i rm ot i on f orr e m a nd; ( 2) the di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on w hen i tdi sm i ss ed the com pl ai ntw i th p re j ud i ce ; and (3) the di stri ctcourterre d w hen i tdi d n otre qu i re C ar gi l l t o answ erthe com pl ai nt . W e a dd re ss ea ch a r g u m e n t in tu rn .

A . T he D is tr i c t

C our t C or r e c t l y D e ni e d the Mot i on to R e m and. T he H ands ar gu e both thatthe no t i ce of re m ov al of thei r c as e t o federa l c o u r t w a s u n tim e ly a n d th e r e m o v a l w a s im p r o p e r . B o th a r g u m e n ts f a il. C a r g ill t i m el y r em ov ed thi s a ct i on t o federa l court , w hi ch had excl usi ve j uri sdi ct i on ov er th e H a n d s ’ c o m p la in t. A s t o the i ss ue of t i m el i ness , a c i vi l ac t i on m aybe re m ov ed t o federa l court w ith in th irty d a y s o f

s e rv ic e o f

p r o c e s s o n th e d e f

e n d a n t. S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 4 6 ( b ) . T he 30- da y t i m e f

orr e m ova l “ i s tr i gge r e d bys i m ul t a ne ous s e rvi c e of the s um m ons a nd c om pl a i nt , orr e c e i ptof the c om pl a i nt , ‘ thr ough s e rvi c e orothe rw i s e , ’ a f t e ra nd apa r tf r om s e rvi c e of

the s um m ons , butnotby m e r e r e c e i ptof the c om pl a i nt una tt e nde d by a ny f

orm a l s e rvi c e . ” M urphy B r os . , I nc . v. M i c he tt i P i pe S tr i ngi ng, Inc. , 52 6 U . S . 34 4, 34 7-48 , 11 9 S . C t . 13 22 , 13 25 (199 9). T he re cord show s that the H ands se rved C ar gi l l w i th a sum m on s and com pl ai ntapprox i m at el y three m on ths af

t erthe H ands fi l ed thei r c om pl ai nti n st at e c ou rt . B ec ause C ar gi l l fi l ed the not i c e of

r e m ova l w i thi n 30 da y s of the i rr e c e i ptof

the s um m ons a nd5

c o m p la in t, th e n o tic e o f r e m o v a l w a s tim e ly u n d e rs e c tio n 1 4 4 6 ( b ) . T he r e m ova l a l s o w a s pr ope r . A s the H a nds c onc e de , the i rc om pl a i nt a ga i ns tC a r gi l l a r i s e s unde rthe P r i c e - A nde r s on A c t . T he f e de r a l c our t s ha ve e xc l us i ve j ur i s di c t i on ove ra c t i ons a r i s i ng unde rthe P r i c e - A nde r s on A c t . 42 U . S . C . § 2210( n) ( 2) ; s e e R obe rt s v. F l or i daP ow e r& L i ghtC o. , 146 F . 3d 1305, 1 3 0 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) .

B . T h e D is tr ic t C o u r t C o r r e c tly D is m is s e d th e C o m p la in t f o rFa i lu r e to S ta te a C la i m. T he H a nds a l l e ge tha tO pa l H a nd w a s i nj ur e d f r om e xpos ur e t o r a di a t i on f r om the ur a ni um e xtr a c t i on pl a ntof C a r gi l l . T o s t a t e ac l a i m of ne gl i ge nc e f

or publ i c l i abi l i ty i nj ury unde rthe P r i c e - A nde r s on A c t , the c om pl a i ntha d t o a l l e ge

“ expo sure t o radi at i on i n exces s of the perm i ss i bl e ‘ do sa ge’ l evel s s etby fe dera l re gu l at i on . ” R ob ert s, 14 6 F . 3d at13 07 . T he H ands’ com pl ai ntfa i l ed t o al l ege that O pal w as expo se d t o radi at i on i n exces s of the do sa ge l evel s s etby fe dera l r e gul a t i on. T he c om pl a i nta l l e ge d, a tm os t , tha tC a r gi l l ne gl e c t e d t o m oni t orthe ex p o su re l i m i t s ati t s faci l i ty, b u tth i s al l eg at i o n w as i n su ffi ci en tt o est ab l i sh liab ility . B e c aus e the c om pl a i ntf a i l e d t o s t a t e ac l a i m unde rF e de r a l R ul e of P r oc e dur e 12( b) ( 6) , the di s tr i c tc our tc orr e c t l y di s m i s s e d the c om pl a i nt , w i thout prej ud i ce , and g rant ed the H ands l ea ve t o am end. T he di sm i ss al beca m e f i nal6

w hen the H ands fa i l ed t o am end thei r c om pl ai ntw i thi n the t i m e a l l ow ed. S ee B ri ehl er , 92 6 F . 2d at10 03 . W hen the H ands fi l ed thei r not i ce of appeal , they

“ w i a ve [ d] the r i ghtt o l a t e ra m e nd” the i rc om pl a i nt . I d. T he H ands ar gu e the di stri ctcourtabused i t s di sc re t i on w hen i tdi sm i ss ed thei r c om pl ai nt . T he H ands ar gu e that , un der F eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 41( b) , the di s tr i c tc ourtw a s r e qui r e d t o f i nd tha tthe f

a i l ur e t o a m e nd the c om pl a i nt w a s w i l l f ul ortha tal e s s e rs a nc t i on tha n di s m i s s a l w oul d nots uf f i c e . T he H a nds w ou l d b e c orre cti f the di stri ctcourthad d i sm i ss ed the com pl ai ntun der R ul e 41(b), bu tthe di sm i ss al of the H ands’ com pl ai ntw as base d o n thei r f ai l ure t o st at e a c la im u n d e rR u le 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , n o t th e irf a ilu r e to a m e n d . T h e d is m is s a l w a s n o t a sanct i on . T he di stri ctcourtw as no tre qu i re d t o fi nd w i l l ful no ncom pl i ance or that ale s s e rs a n c tio n w o u ld n o t s u f f ic e . If , as the H ands al l ege, they di d n otre ce i ve the order of the di stri ctcourtthat gr a nt e d the m l e a ve t o f

i l e a n a m e nde d c om pl a i ntw i thi n 17 da y s , the n the H a nds s h o u ld h a v e m o v e d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to s e t a s id e th e d is m is s a l a n d p e rm it th e m to f ile a n a m e n d e d c o m p la in t. B e c au s e th e H a n d s d id n o t m o v e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to se tas i de the di sm i ss al and p erm i tthem t o fi l e an am ended com pl ai nt , w e are u n ab le to c o n s id e rth e ira r g u m e n ts , r a is e d f o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l, th a t th e ir f a ilu r e to a m e n d th e irc o m p la in t w a s e x c u s ab le . S e e W r ig h t v . H a n n aS te e l C o rp .,7

2 7 0 F .3 d 1 3 3 6 , 1 3 4 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . C . C a r g ill W a s N o t R e q u ir e d

to File a n A n s w e rto th e C o m p la in t. F in a lly , th e H a n d s a s s e rt th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld h a v e r e q u ir e d C a r g ill to f ile a n a n s w e rto th e irc o m p la in t. T h e H a n d s a r g u e th a t F e d e r a l R u le o f C iv il P r o c e d u r e 8 1 ( c ) r e q u ir e d C a r g ill to f ile a n a n s w e rw ith in e ith e r5 d a y s o f th e d a te of r e m ova l or20 da y s f

r om the da t e of

s e rvi c e , w hi c he ve rw a s l a t e r . T he H a nds m i s r e a d R ul e 81. R ul e 81 pr ovi de s the de f e nda nt“ s ha l l a ns w e rorpr e s e ntthe other defe nses or obj ec t i on s a vai l abl e und erthese rul es . ” F ed. R . C i v. P . 81 (c ) (em p h asi s ad d ed ). T h e m o t i o n t o d i sm i ss, w h i ch w as fi l ed b y C arg i l l fi v e b u si n ess d a y s a f te rth e n o tic e o f

r e m o v a l, s a tis f

ie d th e o b lig a tio n o f

C a r g ill u n d e rR u le 8 1 . S e e F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , 8 1 ( c ) . I V . CONCL US I ON B ec ause the H ands’ com pl ai ntw as pree m pt ed by the P ri ce -A nd er son A ct and excl usi ve j uri sdi ct i on re st ed i n the fe dera l court s, the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr w h e n it d e n ie d th e H a n d s ’ m o tio n f o rr e m a n d . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a ls o c o rr e c tly d is m is s e d th e H a n d s ’ c o m p la in t f o rf a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im u p o n w h ic h r e lie f c o u ld b e g r a n te d . AF F I RME D.