In Re: Cotter Corporation, No. 21-1160 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
This case stemmed from plaintiffs' action alleging that nuclear waste materials from various St. Louis sites leaked into Coldwater Creek and its 100-year floodplain in St. Louis County, damaging their health and property. Following Cotter's removal to federal court on the basis of the Price-Anderson Act (PAA), the district court concluded that the PAA did not apply and remanded to state court. After plaintiffs amended their complaint in state court, Cotter filed a third party action for contribution against seven defendants, including Mallinckrodt, which then removed the entire lawsuit under the PAA and other bases. The district court granted the motion and Cotter appealed.
After determining that the court has jurisdiction over the appeal, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the district court abused its discretion by determining that the PAA does not apply to plaintiffs' claims against Cotter because Cotter lacked an applicable license or indemnity agreement. Contrary to the district court's ruling, the court concluded that the PAA provides federal question jurisdiction over all "nuclear incidents," regardless of whether the defendant had an applicable license or indemnity agreement. The court explained that the PAA's text and history support its conclusion. In this case, the PAA Act provides original federal question jurisdiction for all nuclear incidents regardless of whether the defendant had an applicable indemnity agreement.
Court Description: [Benton, Author, with Loken and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Price-Anderson Act. Plaintiffs sued Cotter and other defendants in Missouri state court for allegedly polluting their property with nuclear waste materials; Cotter filed a third-party action for contribution, and one of the defendants removed the case to federal court on the basis of the Price-Anderson Act; the district court determined the Act did not apply to the claims against Cotter because the Act applies only to nuclear incidents if the defendant has an applicable indemnity agreement; the court also declined supplemental jurisdiction over the claims and remanded the matter to state court. After remand, Cotter filed a third-party action for contribution against seven defendants, including Malinckrodt, which then removed the case. Plaintiffs then moved to sever and remand all claims, except the third party claims against Malinckrodt, on the ground they were state law claims; the district court granted the motion and Cotter appeals on the issue of the court's decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand the state law claims. Held: The remand order is a reviewable final judgment, and the court may review the decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction; the district court erred in determining that the Price-Anderson Act does not apply to plaintiffs' claims against Cotter because Cotter lacked an applicable license or indemnity agreement, making its decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction an abuse of the district court's discretion; the Act provides original federal question jurisdiction for all nuclear incidents regardless of whether the defendant had an applicable indemnity agreement.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.