Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 26 Filed 05/03/21 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 141
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`AMAZON.COM INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 21-CV-767 (BMC)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY GENERAL LETITIA
`JAMES, in her official capacity as the
`Attorney General of the State of New
`York,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 26 Filed 05/03/21 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 142
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 2
`STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 3
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 4
`I. THE COURT LACKS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ............................................. 4
`II. YOUNGER ABSTENTION IS REQUIRED ........................................................................... 5
`III. THE COURT SHOULD DECLINE TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THIS
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT REQUEST ........................................................................ 9
`IV. EVEN IF THE COURT REACHES THE MERITS, THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE
`A CLAIM FOR RELIEF .............................................................................................................. 12
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 26 Filed 05/03/21 Page 3 of 34 PageID #: 143
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Allstate Ins. Co. v. Elzanaty,
`916 F. Supp. 2d 273 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) .......................................................................................3
`
`Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo,
`386 F. Supp. 2d 549 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)......................................................................................10
`
`Arbitron Inc. v. Cuomo,
`No. 08 Civ. 8497 (DLC), 2008 WL 4735227 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2008) ...............................6–9
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................4
`
`Astiana v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.,
`783 F.3d 753 (9th Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................................15
`
`Belknap, Inc. v. Hale,
`463 U.S. 491 (1983) .................................................................................................................22
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................................................4
`
`Bldg. Trades Employers’ Educ. Ass’n v. McGowan,
`311 F.3d 501 (2d Cir. 2002)...............................................................................................20–21
`
`Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co.,
`316 U.S. 491 (1942) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`Cadle Co. v. Bankers Fed. Sav. FSB,
`929 F. Supp. 636 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) ....................................................................................11–12
`
`Coley v. Ogden Mem’l Hosp.,
`107 A.D.2d 67 (3d Dep’t 1985) ...............................................................................................18
`
`Concerned Home Care Providers, Inc. v. Cuomo,
`783 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2015).......................................................................................................25
`
`Cuomo v. Dreamland Amusements, Inc.,
`No. 08 Civ. 6321 (JGK), 2008 WL 4369270 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2008) ........................7–9, 25
`
`Diamond “D” Constr. Corp. v McGowan,
`282 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2002).......................................................................................................7
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 26 Filed 05/03/21 Page 4 of 34 PageID #: 144
`
`Doe v. Conn. Dep’t of Health Servs.,
`75 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 1996)...........................................................................................................7
`
`Domnister v. Exclusive Ambulette, Inc.,
`607 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2010).................................................................................................21–23
`
`Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc.,
`422 U.S. 922 (1975) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Dow Jones & Co. v. Harrods, Ltd.,
`237 F. Supp. 2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)......................................................................................11
`
`Eccles v. Peoples Bank,
`333 U.S. 426 (1948) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`Ellis v. Tribune Television Co.,
`443 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006)...........................................................................................13, 15–17
`
`Fleet Bank, N.A. v. Burke,
`160 F.3d 883 (2d Cir. 1998)...................................................................................................4–5
`
`Gade v. Natural Solid Wastes Management Association,
`505 U.S. 88 (1992) .............................................................................................................13, 15
`
`Gasperino v. Larsen Ford, Inc.,
`426 F.2d 1151 (2d Cir. 1970)...................................................................................................16
`
`Gianni Sport Ltd. v. Metallica,
`No. 00 Civ. 0937 (MBM), 2000 WL 1773511 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2000) ................................11
`
`Gibson v. Berryhill,
`411 U.S. 564 (1973) ...................................................................................................................7
`
`GOJO Indus., Inc. v. Innovative Biodefense, Inc.,
`407 F. Supp. 3d 356 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)......................................................................................16
`
`Great Lakes Co. v. Huffman,
`319 U.S. 293 (1943) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`Harris v. Mills,
`572 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2009).........................................................................................................4
`
`Harvey v. 320 Owners Corp.,
`No. 07 Civ. 6763 (LAP), 2009 WL 1110794 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2009) ...................................8
`
`Hasemann v. Gerber Prod. Co.,
`No. 15-CV-2995 MKB, 2016 WL 5477595 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2016) .................................17
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 26 Filed 05/03/21 Page 5 of 34 PageID #: 145
`
`Healthcare Ass’n of New York State, Inc. v. Pataki,
`471 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2006)...........................................................................................21–22, 24
`
`Hicks v. Miranda,
`422 U.S. 332 (1975) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Hindu Temple Soc’y of N. Am. v. Supreme Ct. of State of New York,
`335 F. Supp. 2d 369 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) .......................................................................................8
`
`Huston v. Hayden Bldg. Maintenance Corp.,
`617 N.Y.S.2d 335 (2d Dept. 1994) ..........................................................................................20
`
`In re Am. Fed’n of Labor & Cong. of Indus. Orgs.,
`No. 20-1158, 2020 WL 3125324 (D.C. Cir. June 11, 2020) .............................................14–15
`
`In re Standard & Poor’s Rating Agency Litig.,
`23 F. Supp. 3d 378 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)..................................................................................6, 8–9
`
`MacPherson v. Town of Southampton,
`No. 07-CV-3497 DRH AKT, 2013 WL 6058202 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2013) ...........................8
`
`Makarova v. United States,
`201 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2000)...................................................................................................3–4
`
`McNally v. Port Authority,
`414 F.3d 352 (2d Cir. 2005).....................................................................................................16
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr,
`518 U.S. 470 (1996) ...........................................................................................................13, 25
`
`Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts,
`471 U.S. 724 (1985) ...........................................................................................................23–24
`
`Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n,
`457 U.S. 423 (1982) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`National Commc’ns Ass’n, Inc. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co.,
`46 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 1995).......................................................................................................16
`
`New Orleans Public Serv. Council, Inc. v. Council of New Orleans,
`491 U.S. 350 (1989) ...................................................................................................................7
`
`New York v. Amazon.com Inc.,
`No. 21 Civ. 1417 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2021) ....................................................................3
`
`New York v. Solvent Chem. Co.,
`664 F.3d 22 (2d Cir. 2011).......................................................................................................10
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 26 Filed 05/03/21 Page 6 of 34 PageID #: 146
`
`O’Rourke v. Long,
`41 N.Y.2d 219 (N.Y. 1976) .....................................................................................................18
`
`Ohio Civ. Rights Comm’n v. Dayton Christian Schools, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 619 (1986) ...................................................................................................................7
`
`Paige v. Henry J. Kaiser Co.,
`826 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1987) ...................................................................................................25
`
`Palmer v. Amazon,
`No. 20-CV-2468 BMC, 2020 WL 6388599 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2020) ........................12–14, 19
`
`People v Greenberg,
`34 N.Y.S.3d 402 (N.Y. 2016) ..................................................................................................19
`
`Philip Morris, Inc. v. Blumenthal,
`123 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 1997).......................................................................................................7
`
`Pinckney v. Bd. of Educ.,
`920 F. Supp. 393 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) ............................................................................................7
`
`Queenside Hills Realty Co. v. Saxl,
`328 U.S. 80 (1946) ...................................................................................................................24
`
`Reed v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc.,
`327 F. Supp. 3d 539 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) .....................................................................................16
`
`Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co.,
`81 N.Y.2d 494 (N.Y. 1993) .....................................................................................................16
`
`Sampson v. Medisys Health Network Inc.,
`No. 10-CV-1342 SJF, 2011 WL 579155 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2011) ...................................21–22
`
`Samuels v. Mackell,
`401 U.S. 66 (1971) ...................................................................................................................10
`
`San Diego Bldg. Trades Council, Millmen’s Union, Loc. 2020 v. Garmon,
`359 U.S. 236 (1959) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego Cty. Dist. Council of Carpenters,
`436 U.S. 180 (1978) .....................................................................................................20–22, 24
`
`Shanahan v. Monarch Eng’g Co.,
`219 N.Y. 469 (N.Y. 1916) .................................................................................................18–19
`
`Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
`463 U.S. 85 (1983) .....................................................................................................................5
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 26 Filed 05/03/21 Page 7 of 34 PageID #: 147
`
`Silva v. Hornell Brewing Co.,
`No. 20-CV-756 ARR PL, 2020 WL 4586394 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2020) ...............................17
`
`Simmonds v. Deutsch,
`No. 88-CV-3881, 1989 WL 32835 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 1989) ..................................................7
`
`Spargo v. N.Y. State Comm’n on Judicial Conduct,
`351 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2003).....................................................................................................5–6
`
`Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs,
`571 U.S. 69 (2013) .....................................................................................................................9
`
`State of New York v Cortelle Corp.,
`38 N.Y.2d 83 (N.Y. 1975) .......................................................................................................19
`
`State of New York v Princess Prestige Co,
`42 N.Y.2d 104 (N.Y. 1977) ...............................................................................................19–20
`
`State v. Frink Am., Inc.,
`770 N.Y.S.2d at 227 .................................................................................................................20
`
`Steel Inst. of New York v. City of New York,
`716 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 2013).......................................................................................................25
`
`Storms v. U.S.,
`No. 13-CV-811 MKB, 2015 WL 1196592 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2015) ....................................12
`
`Sun Refining & Marketing Co. v. Brennan,
`921 F.2d 635 (6th Cir. 1990) .....................................................................................................7
`
`Tassy v. Brunswick Hosp. Ctr., Inc.,
`296 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2002).................................................................................................14, 17
`
`Townsend v. New York,
`No. 14-CV-6079 CBA LB, 2015 WL 4692604 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2015) ................................9
`
`Trainor v. Hernandez,
`431 U.S. 434 (1977) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Tsirelman v. Daines,
`794 F.3d 310 (2d Cir. 2015).......................................................................................................4
`
`U.S. ex rel. Best v. Barbarotta,
`No. 12-CV-6218 NGG, 2013 WL 66031 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2013) ...........................................7
`
`United States v. Western Pac. R.R. Co.,
`352 U.S. 59 (1956) ............................................................................................................. 13-15
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 26 Filed 05/03/21 Page 8 of 34 PageID #: 148
`
`Wilton v. Seven Falls,
`515 U.S. 277 (1995) ...................................................................................................2, 9–10, 12
`
`XL Ins. Am., Inc. v. DiamondRock Hosp. Co.,
`414 F. Supp. 3d 605 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)......................................................................................12
`
`Younger v. Harris,
`401 U.S. 37 (1971) ........................................................................................................... passim
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`29 U.S.C.
`§ 151.........................................................................................................................................23
`§ 653(b)(4) .........................................................................................................................13–15
`§ 667(a) ..............................................................................................................................13–15
`§ 667(b)–(c) .............................................................................................................................13
`
`Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.
`§ 2201(a) ..............................................................................................................................9–10
`
`STATE STATUTES
`
`N.Y. Exec. Law
`§ 63(12) ............................................................................................................................ passim
`
`N.Y. Labor Law
`§ 200................................................................................................................................. passim
`§ 215................................................................................................................................. passim
`§ 740................................................................................................................................. passim
`
`N.Y. Workers Comp. Law
`§ 11.................................................................................................................................2, 18–19
`
`RULES
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`Rule 12(b)(1) ......................................................................................................................1, 3–4
`Rule 12(b)(6) ..........................................................................................................................1, 4
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 26 Filed 05/03/21 Page 9 of 34 PageID #: 149
`
`Defendant Attorney General Letitia James (“OAG”), respectfully submits this
`
`memorandum of law in support of her motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, stay
`
`the action filed by Plaintiff Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”), pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and
`
`12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Following an 11-month investigation, the OAG commenced a state-court action against
`
`Amazon under the OAG’s express authority pursuant to New York Executive Law § 63(12),
`
`asserting violations of New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) § 200, which requires employers to
`
`provide reasonable and adequate protection to the lives, health, and safety of their employees,
`
`and NYLL §§ 215 and 740, which are New York’s anti-retaliation and whistleblower protection
`
`laws, respectively. People v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 450362/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 16, 2021)
`
`(the “State Action”). Seeking to interfere with the OAG’s imminent state-court proceeding,
`
`Amazon filed this anticipatory federal action one business day earlier. Compl., ECF No. 1.
`
`Amazon asserts that the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSH Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 651 et
`
`seq., preempts the OAG’s efforts to regulate workplace safety and that the National Labor
`
`Relations Act (“NLRA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 151–69, preempts the OAG’s claims that Amazon
`
`retaliated against individuals for complaining about health and safety violations. Amazon also
`
`contends that the OAG does not have authority under state law to bring her NYLL claims.
`
`Amazon’s complaint should be dismissed. As an initial matter, the Court lacks federal
`
`subject matter jurisdiction because Amazon requests anticipatory declaratory and injunctive
`
`relief while disputing the meaning and application of state law. Furthermore, even assuming
`
`federal jurisdiction, Younger abstention is mandatory here because the OAG’s action is pending
`
`in state court; a safe and retaliation-free workplace is an important state interest; and the State
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 26 Filed 05/03/21 Page 10 of 34 PageID #: 150
`
`Action affords an adequate opportunity for judicial review of Amazon’s preemption defenses.
`
`The Wilton abstention doctrine also calls for this Court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction.
`
`Even if the Court reaches the merits, the complaint fails to state a claim. The
`
`Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) has left COVID-19 workplace safety
`
`issues to the states, so there is no OSH Act preemption. And the primary-jurisdiction doctrine is
`
`inapplicable here. Nor does New York Workers’ Compensation Law (“WCL”) bar the OAG’s
`
`§ 200 claim. Indeed, the OAG has authority under state law to pursue claims for NYLL
`
`violations. NLRA preemption under Garmon does not apply to the OAG’s §§ 215 and 740
`
`claims because the State Action is different from the one that would be presented to the NLRB;
`
`and even if that were not true, the local interest exception applies. This case should be
`
`dismissed.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Throughout the historic COVID-19 pandemic, Amazon has repeatedly and persistently
`
`failed to comply with its obligation to institute reasonable and adequate measures to protect its
`
`workers from the spread of the virus in its New York City facilities JFK8, a Staten Island
`
`fulfillment center, and DBK1, a Queens distribution center. Amazon’s flagrant disregard for
`
`health and safety requirements has threatened serious illness and grave harm to the thousands of
`
`workers in these facilities and poses a continued substantial and specific danger to the public
`
`health. When Amazon employees began to object to Amazon’s inadequate practices and to
`
`make complaints to Amazon management, government agencies, and the media, Amazon took
`
`swift retaliatory action to silence workers’ complaints. In late-March 2020, Amazon fired
`
`employee Christian Smalls, and in early-April 2020, Amazon issued a final written warning to
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 26 Filed 05/03/21 Page 11 of 34 PageID #: 151
`
`employee Derrick Palmer. Amazon’s actions against these visible critics who advocated for
`
`compliance with legal health requirements sent a chilling message to other Amazon employees.
`
`In a deliberate effort to interfere with the OAG’s imminent state-court lawsuit, Amazon
`
`brought this action on February 12, 2021. See Compl. ¶¶ 13, 165, 174. The complaint seeks
`
`declaratory relief that the OAG lacks authority to regulate workplace safety responses to
`
`COVID-19 and retaliation against worker complaints. And the complaint seeks injunctive relief
`
`preventing the OAG from pursuing those claims in a state-court enforcement proceeding.
`
`Just one business day later, on February 16, 2021, the OAG filed the State Action,
`
`requesting an order that enjoins Amazon from engaging in unlawful practices which fail to
`
`reasonably and adequately protect the lives, health, and safety of its employees; requires Amazon
`
`to notify its employees of their rights and train supervisors on these rights; awards damages for
`
`two employees who were wrongly disciplined; and requires disgorgement of excess profits that
`
`Amazon realized by failure to reasonably protect its employees. On February 18, 2021, Amazon
`
`removed the State Action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. New
`
`York v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 21 Civ. 1417 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2021). On April 9, 2021,
`
`after briefing and argument, Judge Jed S. Rakoff remanded the State Action to New York State
`
`Supreme Court. See ECF No. 23-1.
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`On a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, the “‘plaintiff asserting subject matter jurisdiction
`
`has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it exists.’” Allstate Ins. Co. v.
`
`Elzanaty, 916 F. Supp. 2d 273, 286 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting Makarova v. United States, 201
`
`F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000)). “A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 26 Filed 05/03/21 Page 12 of 34 PageID #: 152
`
`jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional
`
`power to adjudicate it.” Makarova, 201 F.3d at 113.
`
`A court reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) must “accept all factual
`
`allegations in the complaint as true and draw inferences from those allegations in the light most
`
`favorable to the plaintiff.” Tsirelman v. Daines, 794 F.3d 310, 313 (2d Cir. 2015). But a court
`
`need not credit “legal conclusions” or “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
`
`supported by mere conclusory statements.” Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009)
`
`(quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). To defeat the motion, the plaintiff must
`
`plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
`
`Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
`
`I.
`
`The Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`As an initial matter, the Court does not have federal subject matter jurisdiction over this
`
`case. In Fleet Bank, N.A. v. Burke, 160 F.3d 883 (2d Cir. 1998), the Second Circuit held that
`
`subject matter jurisdiction is lacking where, as here, a plaintiff seeking anticipatory declaratory
`
`and injunctive relief—including on federal preemption grounds—disputes the meaning and
`
`application of state law. In that case, Fleet Bank sued the Connecticut Commissioner of Banking
`
`and Department of Banking in federal court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the
`
`ground that Connecticut law (a) did not prohibit Fleet from charging non-customers ATM fees to
`
`use the bank’s ATMs; or if it did, (b) was preempted by federal law. Fleet, 160 F.3d at 885. The
`
`Second Circuit ruled that Fleet Bank’s dispute over the meaning of state law deprived the federal
`
`court of subject-matter jurisdiction, reasoning that “opening the federal courts to preemption
`
`claims by plaintiffs raising disputes about the meaning and application of state law risks a major
`
`and unwarranted incursion on the authority of state courts.” Id. at 892.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 26 Filed 05/03/21 Page 13 of 34 PageID #: 153
`
`The Fleet court distinguished Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 96 n.14 (1983),
`
`on which Amazon relies. Compl. ¶ 22. In Shaw, unlike in Fleet, no dispute was raised as to the
`
`interpretation of state law, and in fact, the Shaw plaintiffs “acknowledged that the state law
`
`regulated them in the manner that the state officials were asserting.” Fleet, 160 F.3d at 889.
`
`Accordingly, the Second Circuit limited Shaw’s holding to situations where a plaintiff does not
`
`challenge the interpretation of the allegedly pre-empted state law. Id. at 893.
`
`In the instant case, Amazon has raised precisely the type of state-law dispute that was not
`
`present in Shaw, and that was fatal to subject-matter jurisdiction in Fleet Bank.1 Specifically,
`
`Amazon alleges that the OAG lacks legal authority under state law to pursue claims for NYLL
`
`violations because: (1) the OAG’s authority to enforce NYLL § 200 depends on the New York
`
`Labor Commissioner making a determination that an area is in a dangerous condition; (2) New
`
`York’s Workers’ Compensation Law bars the OAG’s claims; (3) New York administrative
`
`procedure law does not allow for COVID-19 guidance to have any legal effect; and (4) NYLL
`
`§§ 215 and 740 only provide a private, not public, right of action. While Amazon is wrong on all
`
`counts, see infra IV., because Amazon has disputed the application of New York law, the
`
`exception to Shaw recognized in Fleet applies, and there is accordingly no subject-matter
`
`jurisdiction over its preemption claims.
`
`II.
`
`Younger Abstention is Required
`
`Even if the Court determines that subject matter jurisdiction exists, Younger abstention is
`
`required. Based on affirming state courts’ competence “and acknowledging the dignity of states
`
`
`1 See Compl. ¶¶ 15, 189–92, 200–01, 206, 208–09, 216, 218–19 (disputing interpretation and
`application of state law).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 26 Filed 05/03/21 Page 14 of 34 PageID #: 154
`
`as co-equal sovereigns,” the Younger doctrine2 applies when a three-part test is met. Spargo v.
`
`N.Y. State Comm’n on Judicial Conduct, 351 F.3d 65, 75 (2d Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). The
`
`doctrine makes federal-court abstention “mandatory when: (1) there is a pending state
`
`proceeding (2) that implicates an important state interest, and (3) the state proceeding affords the
`
`federal plaintiff an adequate opportunity for judicial review of his or her federal constitutional
`
`claims.” Id. (citations omitted); see also Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar
`
`Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982) (same factors). Each of the three factors exists here.
`
`With respect to the first factor, the OAG’s State Action—the proceeding Amazon seeks
`
`to enjoin in this federal action—is pending in state court.3 To be sure, Amazon filed this case
`
`one business day before the State Action, but where state “proceedings are begun against the
`
`federal plaintiffs after the federal complaint is filed but before any proceedings of substance on
`
`the merits have taken place in the federal court, the principles of Younger v. Harris should apply
`
`in full force.” Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 349 (1975); Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S.
`
`922, 929 (1975) (applying Younger abstention where “federal litigation was in an embryonic
`
`stage and no contested matter had been decided”); Middlesex County Ethics Comm., 457 U.S. at
`
`436–37 (applying Younger abstention where “an adequate state forum for all relevant issues has
`
`clearly been demonstrated to be available prior to any proceedings on the merits”). There had
`
`been no proceedings—let alone ones of substance on the merits—in this federal lawsuit prior to
`
`the filing of the State Action on February 16. See Arbitron Inc. v. Cuomo, No. 08 Civ. 8497
`
`
`2 See, e.g., Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (requiring abstention from deciding suit to
`enjoin state criminal prosecution); see also Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U.S. 434 (1977)
`(requiring abstention from deciding suit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against state
`civil proceedings to stop alleged welfare fraud).
`3 “In light of [Judge Rakoff’s] decision to remand” the State Action, there can be “no dispute that
`there is—now—a pending state proceeding.” In re Standard & Poor’s Rating Agency Litig., 23
`F. Supp. 3d 378, 409 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 26 Filed 05/03/21 Page 15 of 34 PageID #: 155
`
`(DLC), 2008 WL 4735227, at *3–4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2008) (OAG state-court action filed four
`
`days after plaintiff moved for TRO in federal court “properly trigger[ed] Younger abstention.”).
`
`The second Younger factor is satisfied because “the state action concerns the central
`
`sovereign functions of state government such that ‘exercise of the federal judicial power would
`
`disregard the comity between the States and the National Government.’” Philip Morris, Inc. v.
`
`Blumenthal, 123 F.3d 103, 106 (2d Cir. 1997) (citations omitted); see also New Orleans Public
`
`Serv. Council, Inc. v. Council of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 365 (1989) (“NOPSI”) (“[P]re-
`
`emption-based challenges merit a similar focus.”). The Supreme Court, Second Circuit, and this
`
`District have found that “central sovereign functions of state government” include many matters
`
`comparable to protecting workplace health and safety and anti-retaliation rights.4 And the
`
`Southern District has held in an analogous case that “New York has an important interest in
`
`assuring safe, sanitary, and non-discriminatory working conditions for workers in the State,” and
`
`New York’s “interest in enforcing its own laws and investigating their violation cannot seriously
`
`be disputed.” Cuomo v. Dreamland Amusements, Inc., No. 08 Civ. 6321 (JGK), 2008 WL
`
`4369270, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2008); see also Sun Refining & Marketing Co. v. Brennan,
`
`921 F.2d 635, 640–41 (6th Cir. 1990) (recognizing Ohio’s “substantial, legitimate interest in
`
`regulating the safety of the workplace”). The State Action is also brought pursuant to New York
`
`Executive Law § 63(12), which gives “the Attorney General sole authority to sue”—further
`
`
`4 See, e.g., Ohio Civ. Rights Comm’n v. Dayton Christian Schools, Inc., 477 U.S. 619 (1986)
`(outlawing sex discrimination); Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 576–77 (1973) (regulating
`practice of medicine); Doe v. Conn. Dep’t of Health Servs., 75 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 1996) (same);
`Diamond