## Facts

- More than 1,600 plaintiffs filed two large toxic-tort suits in Texas state court alleging personal injury, death, and property damage from radioactive and toxic releases associated with uranium mining and processing in South Texas.
- Plaintiffs alleged varied exposure scenarios, including working in mines or processing facilities, living near operations, and environmental exposure through air and water contamination.
- Defendants removed both actions to federal court, asserting jurisdiction under the Price–Anderson Act’s federal jurisdiction provision for “public liability actions” arising out of a “nuclear incident.”
- Plaintiffs sought remand, arguing that uranium mining and processing claims were outside Price–Anderson’s jurisdictional scope; the district court denied remand.
- Before full discovery, the district court entered case-management orders requiring plaintiff-specific, expert-supported disclosures addressing each plaintiff’s alleged injury, substances involved, timing and circumstances of exposure, and the medical/scientific basis for causation.
- In one action, plaintiffs submitted individual affidavits that were generally conclusory and lacked individualized exposure and causation details; in the other, plaintiffs submitted a single omnibus expert affidavit addressing all plaintiffs collectively.
- The district court found the submissions noncompliant with its orders and dismissed both actions as a sanction for failure to provide required plaintiff-specific expert information.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court properly exercised federal subject-matter jurisdiction under the Price–Anderson Act over tort claims alleging injuries from uranium mining and processing activities.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by requiring early, expert-supported, plaintiff-specific disclosures on injury, exposure, and causation before full discovery.
3. Whether dismissal for noncompliance with the pre-discovery orders was within the district court’s discretion.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the denial of remand, holding federal jurisdiction was proper under 42 U.S.C. § 2210(n)(2).
- The court held plaintiffs’ claims qualified as Price–Anderson “public liability actions” arising from a “nuclear incident,” and thus belonged in federal court.
- The court affirmed the pre-discovery disclosure orders as a valid exercise of the district court’s authority to manage complex litigation.
- The court affirmed dismissal, concluding plaintiffs failed to provide the required individualized expert information on exposure and causation despite notice and opportunity to comply.

## Legal Principles

- The Price–Anderson Act provides a federal forum for “public liability actions” arising from a “nuclear incident,” and its jurisdictional grant can extend to alleged releases of radioactive materials associated with uranium mining and processing.
- District courts have broad discretion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to structure phased discovery and require early, case-specific disclosures in complex mass-tort matters.
- In toxic-tort litigation, generalized assertions of exposure and injury are insufficient where the court orders plaintiff-specific disclosure of exposure circumstances and an expert’s scientific/medical basis for causation.
- Dismissal may be an appropriate sanction for failure to comply with court-ordered pretrial disclosures when plaintiffs receive notice, warnings, and a fair opportunity to comply, and noncompliance prevents meaningful case management and fair notice to defendants.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that the Price–Anderson Act supported federal jurisdiction over uranium mining and processing exposure claims and that the district court acted within its discretion in requiring early, plaintiff-specific expert causation and exposure disclosures; because plaintiffs did not comply, dismissal of both consolidated actions was affirmed.


Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc., 200 F.3d 335 (5th Cir. 2000)