Category Archives: Federal Officer Jurisdiction

Merchant Mariner Plaintiffs’ Allegations Focusing on Vessel Operation — Instead of Vessel Design — Prohibited Removal Under Federal Officer Removal Statute U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Louisiana, October 19, 2015

This is a consolidated case in which various plaintiffs alleged asbestos exposure while working as merchant mariners aboard many different vessels and employers. Each plaintiff also served on at least one Navy ship. The plaintiffs sued their former employers in Louisiana state court under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The defendants removed to federal court, and the district court remanded. The 5th Circuit held that remand was proper. The defendants argued for removal under the Federal Officer Removal Statute, in which actions…

Continue Reading....

Court Denies Certification of Interlocutory Appeals on Personal Jurisdictional Grounds in Two Delaware Cases Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle, September 24, 2015

In these two cases from Delaware, the defendants’ motions to dismiss based on personal jurisdiction were denied. Defendants subsequently sought certification of their interlocutory appeals pursuant to Del. Sup. Ct. 42. The court denied defendants’ applications in both cases, pointing to the “substantial issue of material importance” prong of the Rule 42 requirements.  The court stated that the Delaware Supreme Court has repeatedly held that denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction does not determine a “substantial issue.” In both cases,…

Continue Reading....

Federal Court Refuses to Maintain Supplemental Jurisdiction After Plaintiff Amends Complaint U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, August 18, 2015

In this federal court case, the decedent, Thomas Maguire alleged exposure to asbestos while he served as a metalsmith in the Navy between 1958 and 1961, and then again while working as a steamfitter aboard Navy ships between 1962 and 1963. The defendant, Crane Co. removed the case to federal court based on the federal officer statute 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1). The plaintiff’s original motion to remand was denied, but they were granted leave to amend the complaint to remove all federal claims and defenses. The…

Continue Reading....

Plaintiffs’ Concession to Not Pursue Navy Exposure Results in Remand Under Federal Officer Removal Statute U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, August 10, 2015

In this case, the plaintiffs claimed that the decedent was exposed to asbestos in connection with force draft blowers manufactured by Carrier Corporation and another defendant while in the Navy on board the USS Edson. The plaintiffs moved to remand after Carrier removed the case based on federal officer jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1). In granting the motion to remand, the court accepted the plaintiffs’ argument that despite the exposure, they expressly disclaimed any intention to pursue damages in connection with any Navy exposure: “In…

Continue Reading....

Another Jurisdictional Battle Results in Transfer of Venue from Tennessee to Louisiana In Asbestos Case U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, August 4, 2015

In this case, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, based on his residence. Seven of the defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, which caused the plaintiff to move for a transfer of venue to Louisiana. The court found that Louisiana had a sufficient connection to the claimed exposure: “The Western District of Louisiana is the judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to…

Continue Reading....

Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand Denied as Complaint Did Not Put Defendants on Notice of Federal Claims U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, July 30, 2015

In this federal court case, the plaintiff alleged exposure to various products while working at various worksites as a machinist, pipefitter, and electrician during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Several defendants removed the case based on the federal officer removal statute 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1) alleging that the federal court had jurisdiction because there is a “government contractor defense” to the claims.  The plaintiff moved to remand arguing that the removal was untimely as the defendants were initially put on notice of the federal claims from…

Continue Reading....

Defendants Unsuccessful in Removal Effort Based on Diversity U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, July 28, 2015

In this New Jersey case, two defendants moved for summary judgment, motions for which were not opposed by the plaintiff. Following the dismissal of the two defendants, those remaining removed the case under 28 U.S.C. 1441(a) and 1446(b)(3) based on diversity of citizenship.  Under these sections, if a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses non-diverse parties — creating diversity of citizenship for the remaining parties — the case can be removed to federal court. In response to the plaintiff’s motion to remand, the remaining defendants argued that the…

Continue Reading....

Court Rules on Personal Jurisdiction Issues Involving Dana Corporation Superior Court of Rhode Island, July 16, 2015

In this Rhode Island case, the court granted the plaintiff limited discovery to determine whether certain Dana companies were subject to jurisdiction in Rhode Island: “This Court finds that limited jurisdictional discovery is appropriate as to any ‘substantial’ or ‘continuous and systematic’ business contacts Dana Corporation may have had with Rhode Island. However, no additional discovery is necessary regarding Dana Holding or Dana Companies.” Read the full decision here.…

Continue Reading....

District Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand Case Against Airplane Manufacturer U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, July 14, 2015

In this federal court case, the plaintiffs allege that the decedent was exposed to asbestos while working as a civilian flight mechanic at the Belle Chasse Air Force Base from the early 1950s through 1979. The Boeing Company removed the case to federal court. The plaintiffs then moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing that the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case since defendants do not meet the removal requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1442 (a)(1). In the…

Continue Reading....

Federal Court Exercises Supplemental Jurisdiction in Denying Plaintiff’s Request to Remand U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, June 10, 2015

In this federal court case, the plaintiffs sought to remand the case back to state court after settling with federal defendants GE and CBS Corporation, who originally removed the case pursuant to the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C 1442(a)(1). The plaintiffs sought removal, asking the court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims against John Crane. The plaintiffs also reasserted their challenges to the court’s original jurisdiction, but since those issues had already been addressed, only the new argument was…

Continue Reading....