Goforth v. Nevada Power Co.

Citations: 101 F. Supp. 3d 975; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42167; 2015 WL 1470681Docket: Case No. 2:14-cv-00330-RFB-NJK

Court: District Court, D. Nevada; March 31, 2015; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand was granted by District Judge Richard F. Boulware, II, regarding a case stemming from the death of Herbert Goforth, III, who died while working for Nevada Power Company during a training exercise. Goforth’s estate and heirs filed a lawsuit in Nevada state court, alleging ten state law claims, including wrongful death, negligence, fraud, and strict product liability. Defendants attempted to remove the case to federal court, claiming original jurisdiction over one negligence per se claim based on alleged violations of OSHA regulations, and supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

The Court found that Defendants did not meet the burden of establishing proper removal jurisdiction, as Plaintiffs’ complaint only referenced OSHA violations without creating federal question jurisdiction. The legal standard for removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1441(a) requires strict construction, with any doubts resolved against removal. The Court applied the Grable framework to assess whether any claims arose under federal law, concluding that while the federal issue of OSHA compliance was genuinely contested, the other Grable requirements were not satisfied. Consequently, the Court remanded the case to the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A federal issue is not necessarily raised in the plaintiffs' claims, as proving a violation of OSHA regulations is not essential to establishing their case. Under Nevada law, negligence per se serves as a method for demonstrating duty and breach within a negligence claim, rather than constituting a separate cause of action. The plaintiffs' claims for wrongful death and negligence are based on the assertion that the defendants provided defective safety equipment and failed to warn about hazardous conditions, which directly caused Goforth III's death. Although plaintiffs may use OSHA violations as evidence of negligence, they have alternative state law theories to demonstrate defectiveness without relying on federal law.

Furthermore, even if a federal issue were present, it would not be substantially important to the federal system. The substantiality of a federal issue is assessed based on its significance to the broader federal system. The potential federal issue in this case—determining whether defendants violated OSHA regulations—requires a specific factual analysis and does not extend beyond the parties involved. Thus, while relevant to the plaintiffs' negligence claims, the resolution of this issue lacks broader significance for the federal system.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA Act) does not grant a private right of action, as specified in 29 U.S.C. 653(b)(4). The Act does not alter the existing legal rights and liabilities of employers and employees regarding workplace injuries or deaths. OSHA violations cannot be pursued as private causes of action. The absence of such a right is significant in assessing congressional intent under Section 1331, as highlighted in Merrell Dow. The OSHA Act provides internal mechanisms for reporting violations or unsafe conditions to the Secretary, and employees who face discrimination for reporting can file complaints. This framework indicates that Congress did not intend for private parties to litigate OSHA-related matters in federal court. The Grable decision emphasizes that merely having a federal element is insufficient to establish jurisdiction; the plaintiffs' claims do not meet three of the four criteria established in Grable, warranting remand of the case. Consequently, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand is granted, and the case is sent back to the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada. The plaintiffs allege multiple violations of specific OSHA provisions related to personal protective equipment and fall protection.