Tom Lundeen v. Canadian Pacific RR ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 05-1918
    ___________
    Tom Lundeen, individually; Nanette     *
    Lundeen, and as parents and natural    *
    guardians of Molly Lundeen, a minor,   *
    and Michael Lundeen,                   *
    *
    Plaintiffs - Appellees,   *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    ___________
    Appeals from the United States
    No. 05-1920                          District Court for the
    ___________                          District of Minnesota.
    John Salling, individually; Lorenda    *
    Poissant Salling, individually, and on *
    behalf of, and as parent and natural   *
    guardian of Sebastian Poissant, a minor,
    *
    *
    Plaintiffs - Appellees,     *
    *
    v.                                *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific         *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad        *
    Company,                                  *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants.       *
    ___________
    No. 05-1922
    ___________
    Dion Darveaux, individually, on behalf *
    of, and as parent and natural guardian *
    of Kendall Darveaux, a minor; Brenda   *
    Darveaux, individually, on behalf of,  *
    and as a parent and natural guardian of*
    Kendall Darveaux, a minor,             *
    *
    Plaintiffs - Appellees,   *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    ___________
    No. 05-1923
    ___________
    Larry Schafer, individually, and on       *
    behalf of, and as parent and natural      *
    guardian of Jenna Schafer, a minor;       *
    Tami Schafer, individually, and on        *
    -2-
    behalf of, and as parent and natural   *
    guardian of Jenna Schafer, a minor,    *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,     *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    ___________
    No. 05-1924
    ___________
    Gerald Wickman                         *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,     *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    ___________
    No. 05-1925
    ___________
    -3-
    Charles Swenson; Sandra Swenson,       *
    *
    Plaintiffs - Appellees,   *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    ___________
    No. 05-1926
    ___________
    Rebecca Behnkie, individually, and on  *
    behalf of, and as parent and natural   *
    guardian of Nathaniel Behnkie, a       *
    minor,                                 *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,     *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    -4-
    ___________
    No. 05-1927
    ___________
    Marilyn Carlson,                       *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,     *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    ___________
    No. 05-1928
    ___________
    Larry Crabbe; Carol Crabbe,            *
    *
    Plaintiffs - Appellees,   *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    -5-
    ___________
    No. 05-1929
    ___________
    Wilfred Dahly; Geraldine Dahly,        *
    *
    Plaintiffs - Appellees,   *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    ___________
    No. 05-1930
    ___________
    Denise Duchsherer; Leo Duchsherer;     *
    Joshua Duchsherer,                     *
    *
    Plaintiffs - Appellees,   *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    -6-
    ___________
    No. 05-1931
    ___________
    Judy Deutsch, individually, and on     *
    behalf of, and as natural guardian of  *
    Tyrone Deutsch, a minor,               *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,     *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    ___________
    No. 05-1932
    ___________
    Jo Ann Flick,                          *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,     *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    -7-
    ___________
    No. 05-1933
    ___________
    Leo Gleason,                           *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,     *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    ___________
    No. 05-1934
    ___________
    Charlotte Goerndt,                     *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,     *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    -8-
    ___________
    No. 05-1935
    ___________
    Mary Beth Gross, individually, and on  *
    behalf of, and as parent and natural   *
    guardian of Brett Gross, a minor,      *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,     *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    ___________
    No. 05-1936
    ___________
    Darla M. Just,                         *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,     *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    -9-
    ___________
    No. 05-1937
    ___________
    Irene Clore Korgel,                    *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,     *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    ___________
    No. 05-1938
    ___________
    Richard McBride; Linda McBride,        *
    *
    Plaintiffs - Appellees,   *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    -10-
    ___________
    No. 05-1939
    ___________
    Richard Muhlbradt,                     *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,     *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    ___________
    No. 05-1940
    ___________
    Lonnie Shigley,                        *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,     *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    -11-
    ___________
    No. 05-1941
    ___________
    Bobby Smith; Mary Smith,               *
    *
    Plaintiffs - Appellees,   *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    ___________
    No. 05-1942
    ___________
    Rachelle Todosichuk,                   *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,     *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    -12-
    ___________
    No. 05-1943
    ___________
    Shelly Hingst,                         *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,     *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    ___________
    No. 05-1944
    ___________
    Nathan Freeman, individually, and on   *
    behalf of, and as parents and natural  *
    guardians of Ashlyn Freeman, a minor;  *
    Nicole Freeman, individually, and on   *
    behalf of, and as parents and natural  *
    guardians of Ashlyn Freeman, a minor   *
    *
    Plaintiffs - Appellees,   *
    *
    v.                              *       .
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    -13-
    Defendants - Appellants.    *
    ___________
    No. 05-1945
    ___________
    Doug Weltzin,                          *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,     *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    ___________
    No. 05-1946
    ___________
    Melissa Todd,                          *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,     *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    -14-
    ___________
    No. 05-1947
    ___________
    Ray Lakoduk,                           *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee ,    *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    ___________
    No. 05-1948
    ___________
    Trent Westmeyer; Randi Lou             *
    Westmeyer,                             *
    *
    Plaintiffs - Appellees,   *
    *
    v.                              *    .
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    -15-
    ___________
    No. 05-1949
    ___________
    Leroy Slorby,                          *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,     *
    *
    v.                              *
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    ___________
    No. 05-1950
    ___________
    Mark Nisbet; Sandra Nisbet,            *
    *
    Plaintiffs - Appellees,   *
    *
    v.                              *    .
    *
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company;      *
    Canadian Pacific Ltd, Sued as Canadian *
    Pacific Limited; Canadian Pacific      *
    Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad     *
    Company,                               *
    *
    Defendants - Appellants. *
    -16-
    ___________
    Submitted: October 14, 2005
    Filed: May 16, 2006
    ___________
    Before BYE, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    BYE, Circuit Judge.
    Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CP Rail) appeals the district court’s
    orders allowing the Lundeens to amend their complaint and remanding the case to
    state court. We reverse and remand.
    I
    This action was originally filed by the Lundeens against CP Rail in Minnesota
    state court. They sued for personal injuries and property damages suffered as a result
    of a CP Rail freight train derailment in North Dakota. CP Rail removed to the United
    States District Court for the District of Minnesota based on federal question
    jurisdiction. The Lundeens amended their complaint in an attempt to remove the
    federal question. The district court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction
    over what it construed to be remaining state law claims and remanded to state court.
    CP Rail appealed, challenging the order allowing the Lundeens to amend their
    complaint and the remand as improper forum shopping. Regardless of the merits of
    the forum-shopping argument, we note the amended complaint continues to claim,
    among other things, CP Rail negligently inspected their tracks as shown by failing to
    comply with the rules and regulations of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),
    and we thus hold the district court continues to have jurisdiction through complete
    preemption of the state law claim of negligent inspection.
    -17-
    II
    A question of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised sua sponte at any time.
    Long v. Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, 
    236 F.3d 910
    , 916 (8th Cir. 2001)
    (citation omitted). Generally, a plaintiff can avoid removal to federal court by
    alleging only state law claims. Gaming Corp. of Am. v. Dorsey & Whitney, 
    88 F.3d 536
    , 542 (8th Cir. 1996) (citing Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 
    482 U.S. 386
    , 392
    (1987)). However, there are exceptions to this general rule. One basis for removal
    is federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441. A federal question is raised
    in “those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law
    creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on
    resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr.
    Laborers Vacation Trust, 
    463 U.S. 1
    , 27-28 (1983) (emphasis added). Additionally
    “complete” preemption is an exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule and, unlike
    preemption as a defense, is a basis for federal jurisdiction. Gaming 
    Corp., 88 F.3d at 543
    .
    Congressional intent is the “ultimate touchstone” guiding preemption analysis.
    Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 
    481 U.S. 41
    , 45 (1987) (citations omitted). “If the
    statute contains an express preemption clause, then the statutory construction should
    center on its plain meaning as the best evidence of Congress’s preemptive intent.”
    Peters v. Union Pac. R.R., 
    80 F.3d 257
    , 261 (8th Cir. 1996). Here, the Lundeens
    assert in part CP Rail negligently inspected railroad tracks, so we look to the Federal
    Railroad Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. § 20101 et. seq., and the extent to which
    relevant regulations adopted pursuant to it address negligent track inspection.
    The preemptive effect of the FRSA is specified in 49 U.S.C. § 201061:
    1
    Although the current version of the FRSA’s preemption clause is worded
    slightly differently from the original version, we have noted the two versions are
    “identical in substance.” Cearley v. Gen. Am. Transp. Corp., 
    186 F.3d 887
    , 890 n.5
    -18-
    Laws, regulations, and orders related to railroad safety and laws,
    regulations, and orders related to railroad security shall be nationally
    uniform to the extent practicable. A State may adopt or continue in force
    a law, regulation, or order related to railroad safety or security until the
    Secretary of Transportation (with respect to railroad safety matters), or
    the Secretary of Homeland Security (with respect to railroad security
    matters), prescribes a regulation or issues an order covering the subject
    matter of the State requirement. A State may adopt or continue in force
    an additional or more stringent law, regulation, or order related to
    railroad safety or security when the law, regulation, or order--
    (1) is necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local safety or
    security hazard;
    (2) is not incompatible with a law, regulation, or order of the United
    States Government; and
    (3) does not unreasonably burden interstate commerce.
    On the one hand, Congress created the FRSA to ensure railroad safety would
    be “nationally uniform to the extent practicable” and “‘[t]hese statutory provisions
    evince . . . a ‘total preemptive intent.’’” 
    Peters, 80 F.3d at 262
    (quoting Nat’l Ass’n
    of Regulatory Util. Comm’rs v. Coleman, 
    542 F.2d 11
    , 13 (3d Cir. 1976)). On the
    other hand, the preemption provision is “‘employed within a provision that displays
    considerable solicitude for state law in that its express pre-emption clause is both
    prefaced and succeeded by express savings clauses.’” Chapman v. LabOne, 
    390 F.3d 620
    , 626-27 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting CSX Transp. v. Easterwood, 
    507 U.S. 658
    , 665
    (1993)).
    This circuit has addressed complete preemption in the context of the FRSA on
    two occasions: Chapman and Peters. In Peters we found complete preemption:
    “Congress has expressly preempted state laws affecting railroad safety where the
    Secretary of Transportation has promulgated regulations,” as confirmed by “[t]he
    FRSA regulations explicitly set[ting] out a comprehensive administrative adjudication
    system for handling certification disputes,” which “directly apply to Peters’ [state law]
    (8th Cir. 1999).
    -19-
    conversion 
    claim.”2 390 F.3d at 262
    . Thus, we held, “[a]ny issue raised in this area
    is a federal issue justifying removal.” 
    Id. In Chapman,
    however, we found no
    preemption as to common-law claims arising from alleged deficient performance in
    the drug testing process because “the applicable statute and regulations concerning
    drug testing do not establish an intent to preempt the substantive common law at
    issue,” where the FRA’s drug testing regulations included an anti-waiver provision.3
    2
    The administrative adjudication is described as:
    Pursuant to § 434, the Secretary of Transportation issued
    preemptive regulations concerning engineer certification. Included in
    these regulations is a specific, detailed scheme setting out dispute
    resolution procedures. The regulations establish a review board to
    consider petitions challenging a railroad’s denial of certification or
    recertification, or revocation of certification. Any person denied
    certification can petition the Locomotive Engineer Review Board
    (Board) to determine whether the denial was improper. Any party
    adversely affected by the Board’s decision has a right of appeal. This
    “comprehensive remedial scheme . . . serves to confirm [the FRSA’s]
    preemptive scope.”
    
    Peters, 80 F.3d at 261
    (quoting Rayner v. Smirl, 
    873 F.2d 60
    , 65 (4th Cir. 1989))
    (citations omitted).
    3
    The anti-waiver provision reads:
    An employee required to participate in body fluid testing . . . shall . . .
    evidence consent to taking of samples . . . . The employee is not required
    to execute any document or clause waiving rights that the employee
    would otherwise have against the employer, and any such waiver is void.
    The employee may not be required to waive liability with respect to
    negligence on the part of any person participating in the collection,
    handling, or analysis of the specimen or to indemnify any person for the
    negligence of others.
    Department of Transportation Alcohol/Drug Regulations, 54 Fed. Reg. 53,261 (Dec.
    27, 1989); see also 49 C.F.R. 219.11(d) (1989).
    
    -20- 390 F.3d at 628-29
    . Because we found no preemption, we reasoned there was thus no
    complete preemption. 
    Id. at 629.4
    We distinguished Peters by noting: “[u]nlike the
    drug testing regulations, the rules at issue in Peters did not contain a provision that
    could be construed as a savings clause through which the Secretary preserved state
    common-law claims,” and in Peters “the comprehensive administrative adjudication
    system for handling certification disputes . . . influenced our court’s complete
    preemption analysis.” 
    Id. at 628,
    630.
    Given that the FRSA preemption clauses are substantively identical in Peters
    and Chapman, and our finding complete preemption in the former but not the latter
    by distinguishing the regulations at issue in the cases, complete preemption turns first
    on the Secretary of Transportation’s regulations “covering the subject matter of the
    State Requirement” and then any given regulation’s solicitude for state law. See 49
    U.S.C. § 20106. Again, for example, the drug-testing regulations at issue in Chapman
    contained an anti-waiver provision which displayed a “solicitude for state common
    law distinguish[ing it] . . . from the [regulations establishing a] comprehensive
    4
    We also noted the FRSA does not “provide[] a private right of action for a
    person aggrieved by negligence in the analysis of a drug test, and the absence of an
    alternative cause of action militates against a finding of complete 
    preemption.” 390 F.3d at 629
    . However, our statement was dicta in light of our holding earlier in the
    opinion there was no complete preemption because not even regular preemption lay.
    
    Id. at 629.
    Compare Gaming 
    Corp., 88 F.3d at 547
    , which stated:
    The issue of whether complete preemption exists is separate from the
    issue of whether a private remedy is created under a federal statute.
    Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 
    482 U.S. 386
    , 391 n.4, 
    96 L. Ed. 2d 318
    ,
    
    107 S. Ct. 2425
    (1987). Complete preemption can sometimes lead to
    dismissal of all claims in a case. Although courts may be reluctant to
    conclude that Congress intended plaintiffs to be left without recourse,
    see M. Nahas & Co., Inc. v. First National Bank of Hot Springs, 
    930 F.2d 608
    , 612 (8th Cir. 1991), the intent of Congress is what controls.
    Pilot Life Insurance Co. v. Dedeaux, 
    481 U.S. 41
    , 45, 
    95 L. Ed. 2d 39
    ,
    
    107 S. Ct. 1549
    (1987) (citations omitted).
    -21-
    administrative adjudication system for handling certification disputes that influenced
    our court’s complete preemption analysis in 
    Peters.” 390 F.3d at 630
    .
    In this case, the Lundeens bring claims based in part on negligent inspection of
    railroad track. FRSA track inspection regulations lack the solicitude for state law
    demonstrated by the anti-waiver clause in Chapman. This situation is more akin to
    our discussion in In re Derailment Cases, 
    416 F.3d 787
    (8th Cir. 2005), involving
    inspection of railroad freight cars. We found preemption where:
    The FRA has adopted regulations that require inspections of freight cars
    at each location where they are placed in a train. Railroads must
    designate inspectors who “have demonstrated to the railroad a
    knowledge and ability to inspect railroad freight cars for compliance
    with the [FRA regulations].” The FRA’s regulations specify that a
    railroad may not place or continue in service a car that, inter alia, has a
    defective coupler or a defective draft key retainer assembly.
    The regulations also establish a “national railroad safety program”
    intended “to promote safety in all areas of railroad operations in order to
    reduce deaths, injuries and damage to property resulting from railroad
    accidents.” Federal and state inspectors “determine the extent to which
    the railroads, shippers, and manufacturers have fulfilled their obligations
    with respect to inspection, maintenance, training, and supervision.”
    Inspectors visit rail yards to ensure compliance with the regulations and
    railroads face civil penalties for violations. . . .
    . . . It is clear that the FRA’s regulations are intended to prevent
    negligent inspection by setting forth minimum qualifications for
    inspectors, specifying certain aspects of freight cars that must be
    inspected, providing agency monitoring of the inspectors, and
    establishing a civil enforcement regime. These intentions are buttressed
    by the FRA’s inspection manual for federal and state inspectors.
    Further, there is no indication that the FRA meant to leave open a state
    tort cause of action to deter negligent inspection. . . . Accordingly, we
    -22-
    conclude that Plaintiffs’ negligent inspection claims are preempted by
    the FRA’s regulations.
    In re Derailment 
    Cases, 416 F.3d at 793-794
    (citations and footnotes omitted). We
    distinguished Chapman by noting the regulations there “specifically contemplate[d]
    the existence of a common-law cause of action for negligence.” 
    Id. at 794.
    Similarly, federal regulations establish a specific inspection protocol including
    how, 49 C.F.R. § 213.233(b), when, §§ 213.233(c) & .237(a)-(c), and by whom,
    §§ 212.203, 213.7 & .233(a), track inspections must be conducted; the regulations
    establish a national railroad safety program intended to promote safety in all areas of
    railroad operations, § 212.101(a); federal and state inspectors determine the extent to
    which the railroads, shippers, and manufacturers have fulfilled their obligations with
    respect to, among other things, inspection, § 212.101(b)(1); and railroads face civil
    penalties for violations, § 213 App. B. It is clear the FRA regulations are intended to
    prevent negligent track inspection and there is no indication the FRA meant to leave
    open a state law cause of action.
    We note the FRSA’s preemption clause is employed within a provision that
    displays considerable solicitude for state law in that its express preemption clause is
    both prefaced and succeeded by express savings clauses, and we also note In re
    Derailment was a conflict rather than complete preemption case. Nonetheless, where
    we find the Lundeens’ negligent inspection claims preempted following the logic in
    In Re Derailment and where it is both clear the regulations at issue are intended to
    prevent negligent track inspection nationally and contain no savings clause (so there
    is thus no indication the FRA meant to leave open a state law cause of action), absent
    en banc review we are bound by our decision in Peters to find complete, jurisdictional,
    preemption. The district court therefore has subject-matter jurisdiction in the instant
    case and improperly remanded the case to state court.
    -23-
    III
    Based on the foregoing, this case is reversed and remanded for proceedings
    consistent with this opinion.
    ______________________________
    -24-