Opinion ID: 424926
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Impact of the Preemption on the District Court's Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Text: 40 Having determined that Jackson's claim is within the scope of Andrews and that his state tort remedy is accordingly preempted by the RLA, we turn to whether the effect of preemption in this case is to divest the district court of subject matter jurisdiction over Jackson's pendent claim. 41 In Farmer, the Supreme Court clarified, in the NLRA context, the relationship between preemption and jurisdiction: 42 [I]n referring to decisions holding state laws pre-empted by the NLRA, care must be taken to distinguish pre-emption based on federal protection of the conduct in question ... from that based predominantly on the primary jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board ..., although the two are often not easily separable. Railroad Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369, 383 n. 19 [89 S.Ct. 1109, 1118 n. 19, 22 L.Ed.2d 344] (1969). The branch of the pre-emption doctrine most applicable to the instant case concerns the primary jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. 43 430 U.S. at 295 n. 5, 97 S.Ct. at 1060 n. 5. The distinction made by the Farmer Court, considered together with the emphasis in Andrews on the exclusivity of the remedy provided, under the RLA, by the administrative procedures, compels the conclusion that the preemption at issue in this case relates to the subject matter jurisdiction of the court below. Numerous courts concur in this conclusion. For instance, in Hendley v. Central of Georgia Railroad, 609 F.2d 1146, 1150 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1093, 101 S.Ct. 890, 66 L.Ed.2d 822 (1981), the court observed that the NRAB has exclusive jurisdiction over this dispute, unless 45 U.S.C. Sec. 60 is found to override the statutory arbitration processes. In de la Rosa Sanchez v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 574 F.2d 29, 32 (1st Cir.1978), the court stated: No federal or state court has jurisdiction over the merits of any employment dispute subject to determination by a system board of adjustment. The Maryland district court has similarly observed that this Court's jurisdiction is still preempted because of the threat of interference with a federal regulatory scheme. Majors v. U.S. Air, Inc., 525 F.Supp. 853, 856 (D.Md.1981); see also Carson v. Southern Railway, 494 F.Supp. 1104, 1112 (D.S.C.1979) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). 44 Consistent with the foregoing authorities, we hold that the court below lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain Jackson's pendent claim. 45