Bates v. Missouri & Northern Arkansas Railroad Company, Inc., No. 07-3002.
Plaintiff sued MNA in state court after he suffered damages from a collision between his vehicle and an MNA train. MNA removed the case to federal court, arguing that plaintiff’s claim under the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) provided federal question jurisdiction. When plaintiff amended his complaint to remove the claim, the federal court remanded the case to state court.
On appeal, the court distinguished complete preemption and preemption as a defense. Complete preemption is a narrow doctrine that allows a defendant to remove a case to federal court if federal law has wholly displaced state law as to that issue. Courts are reluctant to conclude complete preemption exists unless the federal statute has “extraordinary pre-emptive power.” Preemption as a defense, on other hand, has no jurisdictional implications; it merely dictates what law will be applied to the claim.
The court had previously held that claims related to track inspection were completely preempted by the FRSA. Lundeen v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co., 447 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 2006) (Lundeen I). Once Congress amended the FRSA to state that the FRSA did not create a federal cause of action, the court overruled its prior decision. Lundeen v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co., 532 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2008) (Lundeen II).
