Dailey et al v. Bridgeton Landfill, LLC et al

Filing 149

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, to remand, and to stay [#123] is GRANTED ONLY with respect to a STAY of future Amended Case Management Order (ECF No. 119) deadlines, and is HELD IN ABEYAN CE with respect to leave to amend, remand, and alternatively, amendment of the case management order. Once the Court has ruled pending motions, a new schedule shall be established for this matter, if necessary. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on June 5, 2018. (MCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL DAILEY, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BRIDGETON LANDFILL, LLC, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 4:17 CV 24 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend
complaint, to remand, to stay pending discovery or alternatively, motion to amend
the case management order. ECF No. 123. Three of the defendants have also filed
a joint motion to prevent and enjoin plaintiffs from using information and materials
plaintiffs withheld until late in the discovery period. ECF No. 142. The Court also
recognizes that the dispositive motion deadline for the initial phase of discovery in
this matter is Monday, June 11, 2018.
Plaintiffs brought this suit for damages and injunctive relief from alleged
radioactive contamination of their home caused by neighboring West Lake Landfill
against defendant Landfill owners and operators, and defendant waste generators
and disposers. Their complaint is brought under the Price-Anderson Act (PAA) as
amended in 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 2210, et seq., which provides a federal
compensation regime for damages resulting from a nuclear incident. Plaintiffs

now seek leave to amend their complaint, arguing that the PAA is not applicable
here and therefore this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Defendants oppose
amendment of the complaint, remand, and a stay of discovery deadlines outlined in
the Court’s Initial Case Management Order (ECF No. 102) and amended deadlines
established in the Amended Case Management Order (ECF No. 119). However, as
of this date, all discovery deadlines have passed. The only future case
management order deadlines concern the filing of dispositive motions regarding
issues relevant to the initial phase of discovery.
The Court needs to rule plaintiffs’ motion to amend and remand in order to
determine the operative claims in this matter and whether this Court has subjectmatter jurisdiction. The Court recognizes the parties’ desire for this matter to
proceed; however, these are complex issues that the Court needs to closely
scrutinize. Federal court opinions examining issues of jurisdiction under the PAA
have resulted in different interpretations. See Strong v. Republic Servs., Inc., 283
F.Supp.3d 759, 767-72 (E.D. Mo. 2017) (discussing cases representing the
“conflicting interpretations of the PAA” in determining whether a federal court has
subject-matter jurisdiction). In the interest of saving the parties the time and costs
of preparing dispositive motion arguments that could potentially be irrelevant after
the Court rules pending motions, I will stay future case management order
deadlines until further order from the Court.

-2-

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend, to
remand, and to stay [#123] is GRANTED ONLY with respect to a STAY of future
Amended Case Management Order (ECF No. 119) deadlines, and is HELD IN
ABEYANCE with respect to leave to amend, remand, and alternatively,
amendment of the case management order. Once the Court has ruled pending
motions, a new schedule shall be established for this matter, if necessary.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 5th day of June, 2018.

-3-