The opinion of the court was delivered by: Alvin K. Hellerstein, U.S.D.J.
21 MC 100 (AKH), 21 MC 102 (AKH) & 21 MC 103 (AKH)
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING AND DENYING MOTIONS TO STAY
In the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, thousands of workers came to the World Trade Center site and nearby locations to participate, and to be engaged, in debris removal and other clean-up tasks. Some of these workers claim to have suffered respiratory and other injuries, and have filed lawsuits against the City of New York, its contractors, building owners and others. The City of New York and certain contractors filed motions for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment based on claims of immunity from suit under state and federal law. On October 17, 2006, I denied their motions. See In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 456 F. Supp. 2d 520 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
Claiming a right of immediate appeal from my adverse ruling, the City and contractors filed a notice of appeal, and asserted that the filing of the notice of appeal ousted the Court's jurisdiction to conduct further pretrial proceedings. On January 8, 2007, I rejected their contention, holding that their notice of appeal was legally ineffective to divest the Court of its jurisdiction. See In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 469 F. Supp. 2d 134 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). Defendants petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for mandamus relief, and moved for a stay of trial and pretrial proceedings.*fn1 Defendants' "Motion Information Statement" (Form T-1080, last revised 11/01/2006) pertaining to their motion for a stay states the "complete relief sought" as follows:
Appellants ("Movants") respectfully request that [the Court of Appeals] enforce the divestment of jurisdiction in the District Court by immediately staying all further proceedings in the 21 MC 100 (AKH) action pending resolution of Defendants' appeal.
On March 9, 2007, the Second Circuit accepted Defendants' appeal, granted Defendants' motion for a stay, dismissed the mandamus petition, and issued a one-page order providing in its entirety, as follows:
Appellants-petitioners [the City of New York et al.], through counsel, move for a writ of mandamus and a stay of the district court proceedings pending appeal.
Appellees, through counsel, move to dismiss the appeal docketed under 06-5324-cv. Because it is at least arguable whether some or all of the assertions of immunity put forward by appellants-petitioners have merit, upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for a stay of trial as well as pre-trial proceedings is GRANTED. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526-- 27 (1985) (immunity from suit is "effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial"). It is further ORDERED that, regarding the appeal docketed under 06-5324-cv, the appellees' motion to dismiss is referred to the merits panel that decides the appeal. Appellants-petitioners' motion for a writ of mandamus, docketed under 07-0185-op, is DENIED as moot. A scheduling order for the appeal shall issue forthwith and the appeal will be heard on an expedited basis.
In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., No. 06-5324-cv, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 8728 (2d Cir. Mar. 9, 2007).
Several parties, including defendants Tully Construction Co. Inc., Tully Industries, Inc. (collectively "Tully") and Verizon New York Inc. ("Verizon"), and plaintiffs Kirk Arsenault and Steve Zablocki, have filed submissions arguing that the Second Circuit stay order does, or does not, apply to them. I write to resolve these recurrent disputes relating to the application of the Second Circuit's stay order to the cases pending before me.
I hold, for the reasons stated below, that for defendants that appealed my ruling of October 17, 2006 to the Second Circuit and which moved for a stay of trial and pretrial proceedings, the Second Circuit's stay order is to be applied to the entirety of the World Trade Center site as defined in Case Management Order No. 3, 21 MC 100 (Feb. 9, 2005) ("CMO3"), regardless whether the claims against these appealing defendants are classified as related to 21 MC 100, 21 MC 102, or 21 MC 103.I hold, further, that defendants which did not appeal to the Second Circuit are not entitled to a stay, and that the cases against them are not stayed. The non-appealing defendants may move to be included in the stay by agreeing to be bound by the outcome of the appeal, or taking prompt steps to join the appeal, or otherwise showing good cause, within 20 calendar days of the date of this Order.
I. Proceedings taking place before the Second Circuit's Stay Order of March 9, 2007
A. Removal and Remand Proceedings
Section 408(b)(1) of the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act of 2001, Pub. L. 107-42, 115 Stat. 230, reprinted as amended in note following 49 U.S.C. § 40101 ("Stabilization Act"), created a federal cause of action for "damages arising out of the hijacking and subsequent crashes of American Airlines flights 11 and 77, and United Airlines flights 93 and 175, on September 11, 2001." The Act conferred original and exclusive jurisdiction over all such actions on this Court. See Stabilization Act § 408(b)(3). Many plaintiffs who alleged injuries caused by exposure to contaminants at the World Trade Center site during the debris removal effort filed suit in New York State Supreme Court, considering their claims outside the jurisdictional scope of the Stabilization Act. Defendants, under the leadership of the City of New York and its counsel, removed such plaintiffs' cases to federal court. The large number of cases that Defendants removed to this Court, and that were subsequently assigned to me as related to the wrongful death claims filed by the legal successors of those who died on board the above-mentioned flights, were organized as a separate group under master docket number 21 MC 100. See Case Management Order, No. 21 MC 100 (Feb. 11, 2003). Plaintiffs moved to remand.
On June 20, 2003, I ruled on Plaintiffs' motions to remand to state court, holding that "claims of plaintiffs alleging respiratory injuries caused by exposure to contaminants in the demolition and clean-up efforts at the World Trade Center site, up to and including September 29, 2001, [arise under the Stabilization Act]," for they essentially involved searches and rescues of people thought to be trapped in the debris from the collapsed Twin Towers. Hickey v. City of New York, 270 F. Supp. 2d 357, 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). As for the period after September 29, 2001, and at sites other than the World Trade Center, the activities essentially involved the removal of debris characteristic to other workplaces, and I held that such claims were more appropriately governed by developed state law regulating work sites, and more appropriately overseen by experienced Supreme Court Justices. I held, further, that there was no indication that Congress intended to federalize activities for months following the terrorist-related hijackings and crashes on September 11. Thus, I ruled that "[c]laims arising from exposure after September 29, 2001, or at sites other than the World Trade Center," did not arise under the Stabilization Act, and thus failed to state a federal claim. Id.*fn2 But I declined to remand these latter cases immediately. Noting that the jurisdictional competency of the federal and state courts to ...