Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 34 Filed 07/09/21 Page 1 of 33 PageID #: 1756
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
` v.
`
`ATTORNEY GENERAL LETITIA JAMES, in
`her official capacity as the Attorney General of
`the State of New York,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:21-cv-767 (BMC)
`
`
`
`Oral Argument Requested
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT OR,
`IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`
`Jason C. Schwartz (pro hac vice)
`Lucas C. Townsend (pro hac vice)
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`Tel.: (202) 955-8500
`jschwartz@gibsondunn.com
`ltownsend@gibsondunn.com
`
`Mylan L. Denerstein
`Zainab N. Ahmad
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Tel.: (212) 351-4000
`mdenerstein@gibsondunn.com
`zahmad@gibsondunn.com
`
`
` Attorneys for Plaintiff Amazon.com, Inc.
`
`
`July 9, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 34 Filed 07/09/21 Page 2 of 33 PageID #: 1757
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ................................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 3
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Amazon’s Responses To COVID-19 Have Been Industry-Leading. .................... 3
`
`The OAG Began An Unwarranted Investigation Into Federally Regulated
`Matters. .................................................................................................................. 4
`
`III. When The OAG Made Overreaching Demands, Amazon Filed This
`Action To Protect Its Federal Rights. .................................................................... 5
`
`LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................................................... 5
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 6
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`This Court Has Subject-Matter Jurisdiction. ......................................................... 6
`
`Abstention Doctrines Do Not Warrant Dismissing Or Staying Amazon’s
`Claims. ................................................................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Younger Abstention Is Inappropriate. ........................................................ 8
`
`Wilton Abstention Is Inappropriate. ......................................................... 12
`
`III.
`
`Amazon Has Stated Claims For Relief. ............................................................... 16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Amazon Adequately Alleges That The NLRA Preempts The
`OAG’s Attempts To Regulate Claims Of Retaliation Against
`Employees Who Protested Working Conditions. .................................... 16
`
`Amazon Adequately Alleges That The OSH Act Preempts The
`OAG’s Attempts To Regulate COVID-19 Workplace Safety. ................ 20
`
`Amazon Adequately Alleges That The OAG’s Attempts To
`Regulate COVID-19 Workplace Safety Are Under OSHA’s
`Primary Jurisdiction. ................................................................................ 23
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 25
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 34 Filed 07/09/21 Page 3 of 33 PageID #: 1758
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`ACE Am. Ins. Co. v. Bank of the Ozarks,
`2014 WL 4953566 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2014) .........................................................................15
`
`Amalgamated Ass’n of St., Elec. Ry. & Motor Coach Emps. of Am. v. Lockridge,
`403 U.S. 274 (1971) .................................................................................................................20
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Atlas Roofing Co. v. OSHRC,
`430 U.S. 442 (1977) .................................................................................................................23
`
`Belknap, Inc. v. Hale,
`463 U.S. 491 (1983) .................................................................................................................18
`
`Bridges v. Kelly,
`84 F.3d 470 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ...................................................................................................11
`
`Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co.,
`316 U.S. 491 (1942) .................................................................................................................13
`
`Bud Antle, Inc. v. Barbosa,
`45 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. 1994) .....................................................................................................9
`
`Cedar Rapids Cellular Tel., L.P. v. Miller,
`280 F.3d 874 (8th Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................................13
`
`Chaulk Servs., Inc. v. Mass. Comm’n Against Discrimination,
`70 F.3d 1361 (1st Cir. 1995) ......................................................................................8, 9, 10, 17
`
`Cullen v. Fliegner,
`18 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 1994)...............................................................................................8, 10, 11
`
`Diamond “D” Constr. Corp. v. McGowan,
`282 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2002).....................................................................................................12
`
`Dittmer v. Cty. of Suffolk,
`146 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 1998)...............................................................................................13, 14
`
`Domnister v. Exclusive Ambulette, Inc.,
`2008 WL 2157115 (E.D.N.Y. May 21, 2008) .........................................................................17
`
`Dow Jones & Co. v. Harrods Ltd.,
`346 F.3d 357 (2d Cir. 2003)...............................................................................................13, 14
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 34 Filed 07/09/21 Page 4 of 33 PageID #: 1759
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Ellis v. Tribune Television Co.,
`443 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006).................................................................................................23, 24
`
`Env’t Encapsulating Corp. v. City of N.Y.,
`855 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1988).......................................................................................................20
`
`Farmer v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., Local 25,
`430 U.S. 290 (1977) .................................................................................................................19
`
`Fleet Bank National Ass’n v. Burke,
`160 F.3d 883 (2d Cir. 1998)...................................................................................................6, 7
`
`Fountain v. Karim,
`838 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2016).......................................................................................................6
`
`Gade v. Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n,
`505 U.S. 88 (1992) .................................................................................................10, 21, 22, 23
`
`Gasperino v. Larsen Ford, Inc.,
`426 F.2d 1151 (2d Cir. 1970)...................................................................................................25
`
`Gubitosi v. Kapica,
`895 F. Supp. 58 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) ............................................................................................12
`
`Healthcare Ass’n of N.Y. State, Inc. v. Pataki,
`471 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2006).................................................................................................16, 18
`
`HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. N.Y. City Comm’n on Human Rights,
`673 F. Supp. 2d 210 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)..................................................................................8, 10
`
`K.D. Hercules, Inc. v. Laborers Local 78 of Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am.,
`2021 WL 1614369 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2021)..........................................................................20
`
`Kanciper v. Suffolk Cty. Soc’y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Inc.,
`722 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2013).......................................................................................................13
`
`Kolentus v. Avco Corp.,
`798 F.2d 949 (7th Cir. 1986) ...................................................................................................18
`
`Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America, Local 114,
`383 U.S. 53 (1966) .............................................................................................................18, 19
`
`Local 926, Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs v. Jones,
`460 U.S. 669 (1983) .................................................................................................................19
`
`Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.,
`460 U.S. 1 (1983) ...................................................................................................................2, 8
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 34 Filed 07/09/21 Page 5 of 33 PageID #: 1760
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`New York v. Solvent Chemical Co.,
`664 F.3d 22 (2d Cir. 2011).................................................................................................14, 15
`
`Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Hudson-River Black River Regul. Dist.,
`673 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2012).....................................................................................13, 14, 15, 16
`
`NLRB v. Tamara Foods, Inc.,
`692 F.2d 1171 (8th Cir. 1982) .................................................................................................17
`
`Pa. Nurses Ass’n v. Pa. State Educ. Ass’n,
`90 F.3d 797 (3d Cir. 1996)...........................................................................................18, 19, 20
`
`Paige v. Henry J. Kaiser Co.,
`826 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1987) ...................................................................................................20
`
`Palmer v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`498 F. Supp. 3d 359 (E.D.N.Y. 2020) .........................................................3, 10, 21, 23, 24, 25
`
`In re Pan Am. Corp.,
`950 F.2d 839 (2d Cir. 1991).......................................................................................................9
`
`Pia v. URS Energy & Construction, Inc.,
`227 F. Supp. 3d 999 (S.D. Iowa 2017) ..............................................................................19, 20
`
`Rural Cmty. Workers All. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc.,
`459 F. Supp. 3d 1228 (W.D. Mo. 2020) ..................................................................................24
`
`San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon,
`359 U.S. 236 (1959) .......................................................................................2, 9, 10, 18, 19, 20
`
`Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego Cty. Dist. Council of Carpenters,
`436 U.S. 180 (1978) .................................................................................................................20
`
`Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
`463 U.S. 85 (1983) .................................................................................................................1, 6
`
`Socony Mobil Oil Co. v. NLRB,
`357 F.2d 662 (2d Cir. 1966).....................................................................................................17
`
`Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs,
`571 U.S. 69 (2013) .................................................................................................................7, 8
`
`Surgicore of Jersey City v. Anthem Life & Disability Ins. Co.,
`2020 WL 5752227 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2020) ......................................................................8, 9
`
`Vill. Green at Sayville, LLC v. Town of Islip,
`2019 WL 4737054 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2019) ........................................................................14
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 34 Filed 07/09/21 Page 6 of 33 PageID #: 1761
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`VonRosenberg v. Lawrence,
`781 F.3d 731 (4th Cir. 2015) .............................................................................................13, 14
`
`Wilmington Tr., Nat’l Ass’n v. Estate of McClendon,
`287 F. Supp. 3d 353 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)......................................................................................13
`
`Wilton v. Seven Falls Co.,
`515 U.S. 277 (1995) ...........................................................................................................12, 13
`
`Wis. Dep’t of Indus., Labor & Hum. Rels. v. Gould,
`475 U.S. 282 (1986) ...........................................................................................................17, 18
`
`XL Insurance America, Inc. v. DiamondRock Hosp. Co.,
`414 F. Supp. 3d 605 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)................................................................................15, 16
`
`Youell v. Exxon Corp.,
`74 F.3d 373 (2d Cir. 1996).......................................................................................................14
`
`Statutes
`
`29 U.S.C. § 157 ..............................................................................................................................17
`
`29 U.S.C. § 158 ..............................................................................................................................17
`
`29 U.S.C. § 653 ..............................................................................................................................23
`
`29 U.S.C. § 654 ..............................................................................................................................21
`
`29 U.S.C. § 655 ..............................................................................................................................22
`
`29 U.S.C. § 658 ..............................................................................................................................24
`
`29 U.S.C. § 659 ..............................................................................................................................24
`
`29 U.S.C. § 667 ..............................................................................................................................21
`
`Rules
`
`N.Y. R. Prof’l Conduct 3.6 ............................................................................................................12
`
`Regulations
`
`29 C.F.R. § 1904.4 ...................................................................................................................21, 22
`
`29 C.F.R. § 1904.39 .......................................................................................................................22
`
`29 C.F.R. § 1910.132 ...............................................................................................................21, 22
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 34 Filed 07/09/21 Page 7 of 33 PageID #: 1762
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`29 C.F.R. § 1910.133 .....................................................................................................................21
`
`29 C.F.R. § 1910.134 ...............................................................................................................21, 22
`
`29 C.F.R. § 1910.138 .....................................................................................................................21
`
`29 C.F.R. § 1910.141 .....................................................................................................................21
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 34 Filed 07/09/21 Page 8 of 33 PageID #: 1763
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Amazon brought this action to compel the Office of the New York Attorney General
`
`(“OAG”) to comply with the federal laws that govern Amazon’s workplace safety response to the
`
`COVID-19 pandemic. The OAG has been disregarding those federal laws for more than a year by
`
`attempting to regulate the adequacy of Amazon’s COVID-19 response in areas that are preempted
`
`by federal law or assigned to the exclusive or primary jurisdiction of federal regulators. In fact,
`
`Amazon has developed and implemented industry-leading workplace protections against COVID-
`
`19 that far exceed any applicable standard, and was justified in taking disciplinary actions against
`
`two employees, Christian Smalls and Derrick Palmer, for repeatedly violating Amazon’s social
`
`distancing policies and, in Mr. Smalls’s case, a quarantine order following a potential COVID-19
`
`exposure. Those facts, however, are not at issue in this case. The only issues—and the issues on
`
`which Amazon has sought summary judgment—concern whether the OAG is improperly
`
`disregarding federal law and intruding on the jurisdiction of federal regulators. As this Court
`
`knows well, federal courts have both the jurisdiction and the obligation to compel such recalcitrant
`
`state actors to comply with federal law.
`
`In moving to dismiss, the OAG offers several theories for why it should not be answerable
`
`in federal court for its ongoing disregard of federal law. None of those theories has merit.
`
`The OAG first argues that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. But it is “beyond
`
`dispute that federal courts have jurisdiction over suits,” such as this one, that “seek[] injunctive
`
`relief from state regulation, on the ground that such regulation is pre-empted by a federal statute.”
`
`Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 96 n.14 (1983). The OAG’s attempt to invoke a
`
`supposed exception to Shaw recognized by the Second Circuit for claims primarily seeking an
`
`interpretation of state law has no bearing on this proceeding. Amazon is not asking this Court for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 34 Filed 07/09/21 Page 9 of 33 PageID #: 1764
`
`
`
`an interpretation of state law, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief only on the ground that
`
`federal law bars the OAG’s actions. This Court can grant that relief without interpreting state law,
`
`as Amazon’s motion for summary judgment shows.
`
`Next, the OAG invokes two abstention doctrines, Younger and Wilton, in a further attempt
`
`to shield its conduct from scrutiny. But this case presents none of the “exceptional circumstances”
`
`that must exist for a federal court to abstain from exercising its jurisdiction. Moses H. Cone Mem’l
`
`Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 14 (1983). Younger abstention does not apply because
`
`no significant state interests are implicated in the OAG’s state court action and it is apparent that
`
`most, if not all, of the OAG’s claims are beyond the state court’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, if
`
`Amazon prevails on its legal arguments and the state court dismisses the OAG’s complaint,
`
`Amazon likely cannot secure the injunctive and declaratory relief it seeks here. Regardless,
`
`Younger abstention is not available where a state actor has pursued its claims in bad faith, as
`
`Amazon’s well-pleaded allegations show here. And Wilton abstention does not apply because
`
`Amazon asserts claims under federal law and does not seek purely declaratory relief.
`
`Lastly, the OAG offers several arguments for why Amazon’s complaint supposedly fails
`
`to state a claim, but those arguments are easily dispatched. The National Labor Relations Act
`
`(“NLRA”) clearly preempts the OAG’s attempt to regulate allegations of retaliation against
`
`employees who protested workplace-safety conditions at Amazon’s JFK8 facility in Staten Island.
`
`Indeed, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) is currently hearing an identical claim for
`
`an allegedly retaliatory discharge following the same COVID-safety protests at JFK8. As the
`
`Supreme Court has made clear, if the NLRB even “arguably” has jurisdiction over a matter (as it
`
`does here), that jurisdiction is “exclusive” and state jurisdiction “must yield.” San Diego Bldg.
`
`Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 244-45 (1959). Contrary to the OAG’s arguments, there
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 34 Filed 07/09/21 Page 10 of 33 PageID #: 1765
`
`
`
`is no basis for applying the “local interest exception” to Garmon preemption here.
`
`The OAG also fails to show that its workplace-safety allegations are not preempted by the
`
`federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSH Act”) or subject to the primary jurisdiction of
`
`the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”). Although this Court declined to
`
`find OSH Act preemption in Palmer v. Amazon.com, Inc., 498 F. Supp. 3d 359 (E.D.N.Y. 2020),
`
`it did not consider the OAG’s allegations regarding “cleaning and disinfection,” Dkt. 33-4 ¶ 51,
`
`policies promoting “hygiene and sanitation practices,” id. ¶ 67, and procedures for documenting
`
`and reporting COVID-19 infections—all of which fall under existing OSHA standards or mirror
`
`OSHA’s COVID-19 enforcement actions. There is no merit to the OAG’s contention that OSHA
`
`must promulgate new, COVID-specific standards to preempt state law. The OAG also fails to
`
`distinguish this Court’s holding in Palmer that a closely similar workplace-safety claim seeking
`
`injunctive relief was subject to OSHA’s primary jurisdiction. OSHA has the institutional
`
`perspective and expertise needed to determine what protocols are adequate in light of a rapidly
`
`changing pandemic—expertise it has deployed throughout the pandemic to regulate the same
`
`practices that the OAG seeks to regulate. OSHA standards have been effective in controlling the
`
`spread of COVID-19, and, together with other efforts, have contributed to the end of the
`
`COVID-19 emergency.
`
`For all of these reasons, the OAG’s motion to dismiss should be denied.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`I. Amazon’s Responses To COVID-19 Have Been Industry-Leading.
`
`Amazon is an essential business that has provided vital supplies to customers and much-
`
`needed jobs throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Am. Compl. ¶ 1. To protect its associates from
`
`COVID-19, Amazon has taken extraordinary, industry-leading measures grounded in science,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 34 Filed 07/09/21 Page 11 of 33 PageID #: 1766
`
`
`
`going above and beyond governmental guidance and requirements. Id. ¶¶ 1-2, 28-116. Amazon
`
`has implemented over 150 process changes to promote social distancing, hygiene, and the safety
`
`of its associates, often doing so well before state and federal officials recommended analogous
`
`measures. Id. ¶¶ 2, 35-36. When the New York City Sheriff’s Office conducted an unannounced
`
`inspection of Amazon’s JFK8 fulfillment center in Staten Island in March 2020, it concluded that
`
`Amazon’s health and safety measures went “above and beyond” then-current compliance
`
`requirements and presented “absolutely no areas of concern,” and that complaints about inadequate
`
`protective measures at JFK8 were “completely baseless.” Id. ¶ 4. Since then, Amazon has taken
`
`numerous additional steps to increase workplace safety, including building its own COVID-19
`
`testing facilities, hosting on-site vaccination programs at its facilities (including JFK8), and
`
`offering a financial incentive to associates who receive the vaccine off-site. Id. ¶¶ 95-112. To
`
`date, Amazon has spent more than $11.5 billion on COVID-related initiatives. Id. ¶ 16.
`
`Amazon takes the health and safety of its employees extremely seriously, which is why it
`
`took appropriate steps to address the health-and-safety violations of Mr. Smalls and Mr. Palmer.
`
`Am. Compl. ¶ 6. Amazon terminated Mr. Smalls’s employment and issued Mr. Palmer a written
`
`warning because of their repeated violations of Amazon’s social-distancing policies and Mr.
`
`Smalls’s violation of a quarantine order following a COVID-19 exposure. Id. ¶¶ 7, 140-52.
`
`II. The OAG Began An Unwarranted Investigation Into Federally Regulated Matters.
`
`Within hours of Mr. Smalls’s termination, the New York Attorney General issued a press
`
`release and posted a Tweet describing Amazon’s actions as “immoral,” “inhumane,” and
`
`“disgraceful,” and “calling on the NLRB to investigate.” Am. Compl. ¶¶ 9, 164, 218.
`
`The OAG then began its own investigation of Amazon’s COVID-19 response at JFK8 and
`
`DBK1 and supposed retaliation against Mr. Smalls and Mr. Palmer for protesting working
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 34 Filed 07/09/21 Page 12 of 33 PageID #: 1767
`
`
`
`conditions and COVID-19 workplace-safety practices at JFK8. Am. Compl. ¶ 10. Less than a
`
`month later, and without interviewing a single Amazon employee, the OAG made a “preliminary
`
`assessment” that Amazon had violated workplace-safety requirements—including the OSH Act
`
`and its regulations—and that Amazon had unlawfully retaliated against Mr. Smalls. Id. ¶¶ 10,
`
`166-67, 220. The OAG’s assessment ignored the New York City Sheriff’s Office’s contrary, first-
`
`hand findings. Id. ¶ 168. The OAG’s “preliminary assessment” was promptly leaked to the press:
`
`on April 27, 2020, NPR reported that it had obtained a copy of the OAG’s April 22 letter to
`
`Amazon and published an article quoting the letter and describing its contents. Id. ¶ 221.
`
`III. When The OAG Made Overreaching Demands, Amazon Filed This Action To Protect Its
`Federal Rights.
`
`The OAG’s investigation dragged on for 11 months. Despite substantial contrary evidence
`
`produced by Amazon, Am. Compl. ¶¶ 11, 165, the OAG continued to claim that Amazon violated
`
`health and safety standards and retaliated against Mr. Smalls and Mr. Palmer, id. ¶¶ 12, 167-72.
`
`The OAG eventually threatened to sue Amazon if it did not agree to demands that included making
`
`payments to Mr. Smalls and Mr. Palmer for “emotional distress” and disgorging profits. Id. ¶¶ 13,
`
`189. Amazon filed this action on February 12, 2021, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief
`
`from the OAG’s unlawful regulation of Amazon’s COVID-19 response. The OAG subsequently
`
`filed its own lawsuit in the New York Supreme Court, alleging that Amazon failed to provide its
`
`employees “reasonable and adequate protection” against COVID-19 in violation of New York
`
`Labor Law (“NYLL”) § 200, and retaliated against Mr. Palmer and Mr. Smalls in violation of
`
`NYLL §§ 215 and 740. Id. ¶¶ 18, 190.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“In resolving a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), the district court must take all
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 34 Filed 07/09/21 Page 13 of 33 PageID #: 1768
`
`
`
`uncontroverted facts in the complaint … as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
`
`party asserting jurisdiction.” Fountain v. Karim, 838 F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir. 2016). To survive a
`
`motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter,
`
`accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
`
`U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim is plausible if “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
`
`court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
`
`I. This Court Has Subject-Matter Jurisdiction.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Under Shaw, this Court has jurisdiction over this action “to enjoin state officials from
`
`interfering with federal rights.” 463 U.S. at 96 n.14. “A plaintiff who seeks injunctive relief from
`
`state regulation, on the ground that such regulation is pre-empted by a federal statute … thus
`
`presents a federal question which the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to
`
`resolve.” Id. The OAG nevertheless argues that this case falls within a narrow exception
`
`recognized in Fleet Bank National Ass’n v. Burke, 160 F.3d 883 (2d Cir. 1998), for lawsuits that
`
`are “primarily an attempt to have a federal court construe a state regulatory statute.” Id. at 884.
`
`But Fleet does not apply because this case does not ask the Court (primarily or otherwise) to
`
`construe state law. Unlike the plaintiff in Fleet, Amazon’s preemption argument is not contingent
`
`on any prior interpretation of state law, and Amazon has not filed this action to preclude the
`
`OAG—“as a matter of state law”—from regulating Amazon. Id. at 889. Amazon simply seeks
`
`to enjoin the OAG’s attempted regulation of Amazon’s COVID-19 response on grounds of federal
`
`preemption and federal primary jurisdiction. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 235-54.
`
`The OAG’s contrary arguments mischaracterize Amazon’s claims and the law. The OAG
`
`erroneously asserts that “Amazon alleges that the OAG lacks authority under state law” to pursue
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 34 Filed 07/09/21 Page 14 of 33 PageID #: 1769
`
`
`
`its claims against Amazon. Mot. 4. But the OAG concedes that Amazon’s complaint is “focus[ed]
`
`on preemption,” not state law. Id. at 5. The OAG cites only six paragraphs in Amazon’s 254-
`
`paragraph complaint that purportedly address the OAG’s authority under state law—one of which
`
`does not even reference state law, see Am. Compl. ¶ 15, and none of which is in Amazon’s causes
`
`of action or prayer for relief. These allegations, which demonstrate the OAG’s overreaching
`
`application of state law, are relevant only to show why the bad-faith exception to Younger
`
`abstention applies. See id. ¶¶ 219, 229. In contrast to Fleet, where the plaintiff sought a declaration
`
`that state law “did not prohibit [a] surcharge fee,” 160 F.3d at 885, Amazon’s declaratory and
`
`injunctive claims rest only on the preemptive force of federal law. Amazon’s motion for summary
`
`judgment on those claims does not address the OAG’s authority under state law. See Dkt. 33-1.
`
`The OAG argues that “Fleet is not limited to cases ‘primarily’ attempting to have a federal
`
`court construe a state regulatory statute,” Mot. 5, but Fleet’s express holding says otherwise. See
`
`160 F.3d at 884 (“We conclude that federal question jurisdiction is lacking because the lawsuit is
`
`primarily an attempt to have a federal court construe a state regulatory statute.”). The OAG also
`
`argues that Amazon is “implicitly asking the Court to assume that the NYLL applies to it,” Mot. 5,
`
`but the same could be said of any plaintiff who has standing to seek an injunction against state
`
`regulation on federal preemption grounds, including the plaintiff in Shaw. Moreover, unlike the
`
`plaintiff in Fleet, which raised preemption only as a “contention in reserve,” 160 F.3d at 891,
`
`Amazon seeks relief based solely on federal preemption and primary jurisdiction; the Court need
`
`not construe state law before granting Amazon’s request for declaratory and injunctive relief.
`
`II. Abstention Doctrines Do Not Warrant Dismissing Or Staying Amazon’s Claims.
`
`Federal courts have a “virtually unflagging” obligation to exercise the jurisdiction given
`
`them, Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 77 (2013), and a constitutional duty “to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 34 Filed 07/09/21 Page 15 of 33 PageID #: 1770
`
`
`
`adjudicate a controversy properly before” them, Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 14. Abdication of
`
`this obligation is justified “only in the exceptional circumstances” where directing the parties to
`
`“repair to [a] State court would clearly serve an important countervailing interest.” Id. Otherwise,
`
`“[t]he pendency of an action in a state court is no bar to proceedings concerning the same matter
`
`in” federal court. Sprint, 571 U.S. at 73 (alteration omitted). No such exceptional circumstances
`
`are present here. This Court should reject the OAG’s invitation to abstain.1
`
`A. Younger Abstention Is Inappropriate.
`
`Younger abstention is appropriate only where (1) there is an “ongoing state proceeding,”
`
`(2) that implicates an “important state interest,” and (3) provides “an adequate forum for the
`
`vindication of federal constitutional rights.” Cullen v. Fliegner, 18 F.3d 96, 103 & n.4 (2d Cir.
`
`1994). The OAG cannot satisfy the second or third prongs of this analysis, rendering Younger
`
`abstention inapplicable. Younger abstention independently fails because Amazon adequately
`
`alleges that the OAG’s investigation and litigation fall within the “bad faith” exception to Younger.
`
`1. The OAG’s State Court Action Does Not Raise Important State Interests.
`
`To begin, the OAG cannot satisfy the second prong of the test for Younger abstention
`
`because there is no cognizable “important state interest” implicated in the state proceeding. Cullen,
`
`18 F.3d at 103 n.4. It is “readily appare