Opinion ID: 738219
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Other Circuits' Analysis of Preemption

Text: 21 Two courts of appeals have recently concluded that the Price-Anderson Act, as amended in 1988, preempts state law claims. In O'Conner, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's holding that under the Price-Anderson Act, as amended, the applicable standard of care would be determined by federal regulations and a different standard would be preempted by federal law. 13 F.3d at 1094. In the context of deciding that the federal court had subject matter jurisdiction under Article III over an action arising under the Price-Anderson Act, the Seventh Circuit reasoned that a state cause of action is not merely transferred to federal court; instead, a new federal cause of action supplants the prior state cause of action. Id. at 1099-1100. The Seventh Circuit further reasoned that 22 Congress did not adopt in wholesale fashion state law. State law serves as the basis for the cause of action only as long as state law is consistent with the other parts of the Act. Congress desired that state law provide the content for and operate as federal law; however, Congress recognized that state law would operate in the context of a complex federal scheme which would mold and shape any cause of action grounded in state law.... [A]lthough the basis for a public liability cause of action is state law, the applicable law is only derived from state law. The Price-Anderson system, by design, alters state tort law to forward the goals of that act. 23 Id. at 1100. 24 Similarly in TMI II, the Third Circuit held that [a]fter the Amendments Act, no state cause of action based on public liability exists. A claim growing out of any nuclear incident is compensable under the terms of the Amendments Act or it is not compensable at all. 940 F.2d at 854. In concluding that the court had jurisdiction over Price-Anderson Act claims under Article III, the Third Circuit reasoned that Congress clearly intended to supplant all possible state causes of action when the factual prerequisite of the statute are met. Id. at 857. The court also stated that states are preempted from imposing a non-federal duty in tort, because any state duty would infringe upon pervasive federal regulation in the field of nuclear safety, and thus would conflict with federal law. Id. at 859; see also TMI, 67 F.3d at 1106 (affirming the district court's determination that federal law determines the standard of care and preempts state tort law); Lujan v. Regents, 69 F.3d 1511, 1513 (10th Cir.1995) (noting that the plaintiff had not appealed the district court's holding that the plaintiff's state law claims premised on exposure to radioactive substances were preempted by Price-Anderson). 25 Because the Price-Anderson Act, as amended in 1988, specifically dictates that state law applies only to the extent it is not inconsistent with federal law and because we agree with the analyses of preemption in O'Conner and TMI II, we hold that the Price-Anderson Act preempts Nieman's state law claims; the state law claims cannot stand as separate causes of action. Nieman can sue under the Price-Anderson Act, as amended, or not at all. His federal claim will be derived from state law, as mandated by § 2014(hh), to the extent it is not inconsistent with federal law. Therefore, our present task, in the posture of review of the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss, is limited to considering whether, viewing the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to Nieman, his continuing trespass claim is timely under the Price-Anderson Act.