Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 32 Filed 06/18/21 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 277
`
`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
`AMENDED COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 32 Filed 06/18/21 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 278
`
`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 ...................................................................... 11
`
`IV. EVEN IF THE COURT REACHES THE MERITS, THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE
`A CLAIM FOR RELIEF .............................................................................................................. 15
`
`A. THE OAG’S NYLL § 200 CLAIM IS NOT PREEMPTED BY THE OSH ACT. .......................... 15
`
`B. OSHA DOES NOT HAVE PRIMARY JURISDICTION OVER THE OAG’S NYLL § 200 CLAIM. 16
`
`C. THE OAG’S NYLL §§ 215 AND 740 CLAIMS ARE NOT PREEMPTED BY THE NLRA. ......... 19
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 32 Filed 06/18/21 Page 3 of 34 PageID #: 279
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Allstate Ins. Co. v. Elzanaty,
`916 F. Supp. 2d 273 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) .......................................................................................4
`
`Anderson v. Chou,
`No. 06-CV-3563 (BMC)(LB), 2006 WL 2620424 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2006) .........................6
`
`Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Abrams,
`520 N.E.2d 535 (N.Y. 1988) ......................................................................................................9
`
`Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo,
`386 F. Supp. 2d 549 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)......................................................................................12
`
`Arbitron, Inc. v. Cuomo,
`No. 08 Civ. 8497 (DLC), 2008 WL 4735227 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2008) .............................7, 11
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`Astiana v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.,
`783 F.3d 753 (9th Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................................17
`
`Belknap, Inc. v. Hale,
`463 U.S. 491 (1983) .................................................................................................................21
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`Black Sea Inv., Ltd. v. United Heritage Corp.,
`204 F.3d 647 (5th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................................14
`
`Bldg. Trades Employers’ Educ. Ass’n v. McGowan,
`311 F.3d 501 (2d Cir. 2002).....................................................................................................20
`
`Bridges v. Kelly,
`84 F.3d 470 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................................. 10-11
`
`Cadle Co. v. Bankers Fed. Sav. FSB,
`929 F. Supp. 636 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) ..........................................................................................13
`
`Carlisle v. Bennett,
`197 N.E. 220 (N.Y. 1935) ..........................................................................................................9
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 32 Filed 06/18/21 Page 4 of 34 PageID #: 280
`
`Cedar Rapids Cellular Tel., L.P. v. Miller,
`280 F.3d 874 (8th Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................................14
`
`Chaulk Servs., Inc. v. Mass. Comm’n Against Discrim.,
`70 F.3d 1361 (1st Cir. 1995) ......................................................................................................8
`
`Concerned Home Care Providers, Inc. v. Cuomo,
`783 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2015).......................................................................................................25
`
`Cullen v. Fliegner,
`18 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 1994)....................................................................................................... 8-9
`
`Cuomo v. Dreamland Amusements, Inc.,
`No. 08 Civ. 6321 (JGK), 2008 WL 4369270 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2008) ........................ 7-8, 11
`
`Diamond “D” Constr. Corp. v. McGowan,
`282 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2002).....................................................................................................10
`
`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)................................................................................................. 21-22
`
`Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Harrods Ltd.,
`346 F.3d 357 (2d Cir. 2003).....................................................................................................14
`
`Dow Jones & Co. v. Harrods, Ltd.,
`237 F. Supp. 2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), aff’d, 346 F.3d 347 (2d Cir. 2003) .............................12
`
`Eccles v. Peoples Bank,
`333 U.S. 426 (1948) .................................................................................................................11
`
`Ellis v. Tribune Television Co.,
`443 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006)........................................................................................... 16, 18-19
`
`Farmer v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., Loc. 25,
`430 U.S. 290 (1977) ...........................................................................................................22, 25
`
`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) ...................................................................................................................15
`
`Gasperino v. Larsen Ford, Inc.,
`426 F.2d 1151 (2d Cir. 1970)...................................................................................................18
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 32 Filed 06/18/21 Page 5 of 34 PageID #: 281
`
`Gianni Sport Ltd. v. Metallica,
`No. 00 Civ. 0937 (MBM), 2000 WL 1773511 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2000) ................................12
`
`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)......................................................................................18
`
`Harris v. Mills,
`572 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2009).........................................................................................................3
`
`Hartman v. Moore,
`547 U.S. 250 (2006) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`Hasemann v. Gerber Prod. Co.,
`No. 15-CV-2995 (MKB), 2016 WL 5477595 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2016)...............................18
`
`Healthcare Ass’n of New York State, Inc. v. Pataki,
`471 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2006)........................................................................................... 20-21, 23
`
`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) .......................................................................................7
`
`HSBC Bank USA v. N.Y. City Comm’n on Human Rights,
`673 F. Supp. 2d 210 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)........................................................................................8
`
`In re Standard and Poor’s,
`23 F. Supp. 3d 378 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)..........................................................................................6
`
`Johnson v. D.A. Off., Staten Island,
`No. 18-CV-1205 (BMC), 2018 WL 1135475 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2018) ..................................8
`
`Kanciper v. Suffolk Cty. SPCA,
`722 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2013).......................................................................................................14
`
`Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of Am., Loc. 114,
`383 U.S. 53 (1966) ...................................................................................................................22
`
`MacPherson v. Town of Southampton,
`No. 07-CV-3497 (DRH) (AKT), 2013 WL 6058202 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2013)......................8
`
`McNally v. Port Authority,
`414 F.3d 352 (2d Cir. 2005).....................................................................................................18
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 32 Filed 06/18/21 Page 6 of 34 PageID #: 282
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr,
`518 U.S. 470 (1996) ...........................................................................................................15, 25
`
`Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts,
`471 U.S. 724 (1985) ........................................................................................................... 23-24
`
`National Comm’ns Ass’n, Inc. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co.,
`46 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 1995).......................................................................................................18
`
`New Orleans Public Serv., Inc. v. Council of New Orleans,
`491 U.S. 350 (1989) ...............................................................................................................6, 8
`
`New York v. Solvent Chem. Co.,
`664 F.3d 22 (2d Cir. 2011)............................................................................................... passim
`
`Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Hudson River-Black River Regulating Dist.,
`673 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2012).......................................................................................................14
`
`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.com Inc.,
`498 F. Supp. 3d 359 (E.D.N.Y. 2020) ........................................................................... 9, 15-16
`
`Philip Morris, Inc. v. Blumenthal,
`123 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 1997).......................................................................................................6
`
`Pia v. URS Energy & Constr., Inc.,
`227 F. Supp. 3d 999 (S.D. Iowa 2017) .............................................................................. 24-25
`
`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
`
`Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co.,
`81 N.Y.2d 494 (N.Y. 1993) .....................................................................................................18
`
`Sampson v. Medisys Health Network Inc.,
`No. 10-CV-1342 SJF, 2011 WL 579155 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2011) .........................................21
`
`Samuels v. Mackell,
`401 U.S. 66 (1971) ...................................................................................................................13
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 32 Filed 06/18/21 Page 7 of 34 PageID #: 283
`
`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) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
`463 U.S. 85 (1983) ................................................................................................................. 4-5
`
`Simmonds v. Deutsch,
`No. 88-CV-3881, 1989 WL 32835 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 1989) ..................................................7
`
`Spargo v. N.Y. State Comm’n on Judicial Conduct,
`351 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2003).........................................................................................................6
`
`Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs,
`571 U.S. 69 (2013) .....................................................................................................................6
`
`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) .................................13
`
`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).......................................................................................................16
`
`Townsend v. New York,
`No. 14-CV-6079 (CBA) (LB), 2015 WL 4692604 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2015) .........................11
`
`Tsirelman v. Daines,
`794 F.3d 310 (2d Cir. 2015).......................................................................................................3
`
`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) ...................................................................................................................16
`
`Vill. of Westfield v. Welch’s,
`170 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 1999).....................................................................................................14
`
`Wilton v. Seven Falls Co.,
`515 U.S. 277 (1995) ................................................................................................. 2, 11, 13-14
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 32 Filed 06/18/21 Page 8 of 34 PageID #: 284
`
`XL Ins. Am., Inc. v. DiamondRock Hosp. Co.,
`414 F. Supp. 3d 605 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)......................................................................................13
`
`Youell v. Exxon Corp.,
`74 F.3d 373 (2d Cir. 1996)................................................................................................. 14-15
`
`Younger v. Harris,
`401 U.S. 37 (1971) ........................................................................................................... passim
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`29 U.S.C.
`§ 151.....................................................................................................................................1, 23
`§ 651...........................................................................................................................................1
`§ 653(b)(4) .........................................................................................................................15, 17
`§ 667(a) ..............................................................................................................................15, 17
`§ 667(b)–(c) .............................................................................................................................15
`
`
`
`Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.
`§ 2201(a) ..................................................................................................................................11
`
`STATE STATUTES
`
`N.Y. Exec. Law
`§ 63(12) ............................................................................................................................1, 7, 16
`
`N.Y. Labor Law
`§ 200................................................................................................................................. passim
`§ 215................................................................................................................................. passim
`§ 740................................................................................................................................. passim
`
`FEDERAL REGULATIONS
`
`29 C.F.R. 1910, Subpart U ................................................................................................. 16-17, 19
`
`RULES
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`Rule 12(b)(1) ..........................................................................................................................1, 3
`Rule 12(b)(6) ..........................................................................................................................1, 3
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 32 Filed 06/18/21 Page 9 of 34 PageID #: 285
`
`Defendant Attorney General Letitia James (“OAG”) respectfully submits this
`
`memorandum of law in support of her motion to dismiss the amended 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 prevent the OAG’s imminent state-court proceeding, Amazon
`
`filed this anticipatory federal action one business day earlier. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”). In its
`
`now-amended complaint, ECF No. 27 (“Am. Compl.”), Amazon contends that the OAG does not
`
`have authority under state law to bring NYLL claims. Amazon also 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’s complaint should be dismissed. As an initial matter, there is no subject matter
`
`jurisdiction because Amazon requests anticipatory declaratory and injunctive relief against a
`
`state-law proceeding while disputing the meaning and application of state law. Even assuming
`
`federal jurisdiction, Younger abstention is mandatory because the OAG’s action is pending in
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 32 Filed 06/18/21 Page 10 of 34 PageID #: 286
`
`state court; a safe and retaliation-free workplace is an important state interest; and the State
`
`Action affords an adequate opportunity for judicial review of Amazon’s preemption defenses.
`
`The “facially conclusive” and “bad faith” exceptions to Younger do not apply. 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. Apart from
`
`healthcare settings, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) has left
`
`COVID-19 workplace safety issues to the states, so there is no OSH Act preemption of the
`
`OAG’s § 200 claim. And the primary-jurisdiction doctrine is also inapplicable. 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 under New York law to institute reasonable and adequate
`
`measures to protect its workers from the spread of the virus in its New York City facilities.
`
`Amazon’s flagrant disregard for health and safety requirements has threatened serious illness and
`
`grave harm to the thousands of workers and poses a continued substantial and specific danger to
`
`the public health. When Amazon employees objected to its inadequate practices and made
`
`complaints to management, government agencies, and the media, Amazon took swift retaliatory
`
`action. In late March 2020, Amazon fired employee Christian Smalls, and in early April 2020,
`
`Amazon issued a final written warning to employee Derrick Palmer. Amazon’s actions against
`
`these visible critics for complaints of non-compliance with legally required health protection
`
`standards sent a chilling message to other Amazon employees.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 32 Filed 06/18/21 Page 11 of 34 PageID #: 287
`
`Amazon brought this action on February 12, 2021, in an attempt to stop the OAG’s
`
`imminent State Action, filed one business day later on February 16, 2021. In the State Action,
`
`the OAG requests 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 take affirmative steps to train and notify its employees and undergo monitoring;
`
`awards damages for employees against whom there was wrongful retaliation; and requires
`
`disgorgement of excess profits that Amazon realized by failure to reasonably protect employees.
`
`See Am. Compl. at 29–30, NYSCEF No. 15, People v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 450362/2021
`
`(N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 6, 2021). On February 18, 2021, Amazon removed the State Action to 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.
`
`The OAG filed a motion to dismiss Amazon’s original complaint on May 3. ECF No. 25.
`
`In lieu of opposing the motion, Amazon amended its complaint on May 17. ECF No. 27.
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`A court reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss 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). “The standard for reviewing a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 32 Filed 06/18/21 Page 12 of 34 PageID #: 288
`
`essentially identical to the 12(b)(6) standard, except that” the plaintiff has the burden of proving
`
`subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Elzanaty, 916
`
`F. Supp. 2d 273, 286 (E.D.N.Y. 2013).
`
`I.
`
`The Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`As an initial matter, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Fleet Bank,
`
`N.A. v. Burke, 160 F.3d 883 (2d Cir. 1998), held that federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking
`
`when, as here, a plaintiff seeking anticipatory declaratory and injunctive relief—including on
`
`federal preemption grounds—disputes the meaning and application of state law. In Fleet, the
`
`Connecticut Commissioner of Banking had opined that state law prohibited a bank from
`
`charging non-customers to use its ATMs. Fleet sued in federal court, seeking injunctive and
`
`declaratory relief, based on two propositions: that the commissioner was wrong about state law,
`
`and that if he was right the National Bank Act preempted the law. Id. at 885. The Second
`
`Circuit ruled that the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction since “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.
`
`Fleet distinguished Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 96 n.14 (1983), on which Amazon
`
`relies, Am. Compl. ¶ 23, because the plaintiffs in Shaw had “acknowledged that the state law
`
`regulated them in the manner that the state officials were asserting.” Fleet, 160 F.3d at 889.
`
`Like Fleet, and unlike Shaw, the present case implicates a state-law dispute, which is fatal to
`
`federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Amazon alleges that the OAG lacks authority under state
`
`law—regardless of federal preemption—to pursue any of its claims against Amazon.
`
`Specifically, as to workplace safety claims under NYLL § 200, Amazon alleges that New
`
`York law restricts the OAG to enforcing findings made by the New York Commissioner of
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 32 Filed 06/18/21 Page 13 of 34 PageID #: 289
`
`Labor after a workplace inspection, Am. Compl. ¶¶ 219, 229, and precludes giving effect to
`
`either federal or state agencies’ safety guidance, id. ¶¶ 207–08. As to retaliation claims under
`
`NYLL §§ 215 and 740, Amazon alleges that “[e[ven if the New York Labor Law were not
`
`preempted,” Mr. Smalls and Mr. Palmer are pursuing private actions and “even under state law,
`
`the OAG has no power to file employment claims on behalf of individuals” Id. ¶¶ 15, 189.
`
`While Amazon is wrong on all counts, see infra IV., what matters for jurisdictional purposes is
`
`that if Amazon were right that the OAG is exceeding its authority under state law, no preemption
`
`issue would exist. Amazon cannot ask for the federal preemption questions to be decided first by
`
`implicitly asking the Court to assume that the NYLL applies to it. Under Fleet, only state courts
`
`have jurisdiction to decide that threshold question.
`
` Amazon has framed its amended complaint to focus on preemption rather than on the
`
`OAG’s authority to pursue its state law claims. But a plaintiff’s desire to win on federal-law
`
`grounds does not create jurisdiction. The relevant question under Fleet is whether the meaning
`
`of the allegedly preempted statutes is disputed—regardless of how the plaintiff has ordered its
`
`arguments. The Fleet court noted that “it is possible that the Supreme Court” may one day find
`
`“that the Shaw footnote authorizes federal court jurisdiction for suits to enjoin state officers from
`
`enforcing allegedly preempted statutes not only when the meaning of those statutes is undisputed
`
`but also when the meaning is disputed.” 160 F.3d at 893. But until the Supreme Court so
`
`instructs, Fleet is not limited to cases “primarily” attempting to have a federal court construe a
`
`state regulatory statute. Fleet applies whenever a plaintiff seeks to enjoin state officers from
`
`enforcing allegedly preempted statutes while also disputing the meaning of those statutes.
`
`Therefore, federal jurisdiction does not lie here.
`
`II.
`
`Younger Abstention Is Required
`
`Even if the Court determines that subject matter jurisdiction exists, Younger abstention is
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 32 Filed 06/18/21 Page 14 of 34 PageID #: 290
`
`required. Based on affirming state courts’ competence “and acknowledging the dignity of states
`
`as co-equal sovereigns,” the Younger doctrine applies when a three-part test is met. Younger v.
`
`Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 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.” Spargo v. N.Y. State Comm’n on Judicial Conduct, 351 F.3d
`
`65, 75 (2d Cir. 2003) (citations omitted); see also Anderson v. Chou, No. 06-CV-3563
`
`(BMC)(LB), 2006 WL 2620424, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2006). Each of the three factors
`
`exists here. Plus, the State Action bears “all three hallmarks” of state proceedings as to which
`
`the Supreme Court has found Younger abstention appropriate: it “(1) was ‘initiate[d]’ by ‘a state
`
`actor’ (namely, the state attorney general acting in [her] official capacity) to (2) ‘sanction the
`
`federal plaintiff for some wrongful act’…; and (3) ‘involved’ a lengthy ‘investigation[]…
`
`culminating in the filing of a formal complaint.’” In re Standard and Poor’s, 23 F. Supp. 3d 378,
`
`409 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 79–80 (2013)).
`
`With respect to the first Younger factor, the OAG’s State Action—the proceeding
`
`Amazon seeks to enjoin in this federal action—is pending in state court.1
`
`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
`
`
`1 “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.” Standard & Poor’s, 23 F. Supp. 3d at 409. While
`Amazon filed this case one business day before the State Action, no proceedings of substance
`took place, so Younger “should apply in full force.” Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 349
`(1975). Moreover, Amazon amended its complaint three months after the State Action’s filing.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 32 Filed 06/18/21 Page 15 of 34 PageID #: 291
`
`Serv., Inc. v. Council of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 365 (1989) (“NOPSI”) (“[P]re-emption-
`
`based challenges merit a similar focus.”). The Southern District 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 its “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) (abstaining under
`
`Younger); 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”).2 And the New York Executive Law § 63(12) grants “the Attorney General sole
`
`authority to sue” here—further evincing the important state interests at stake. Arbitron, Inc. v.
`
`Cuomo, No. 08 Civ. 8497 (DLC), 2008 WL 4735227 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2008), at *5.
`
`The third Younger