Category Archives: Federal Officer Jurisdiction

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....

Plaintiff Granted Remand of Shipyard’s Removal to Federal Court

In this federal court case, the plaintiff alleged that he had been exposed to asbestos while he was an employee of Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (previously known as Avondale shipyards) in various positions from 1948 through 1996. The defendants removed the case, claiming the federal court had jurisdiction pursuant to the Federal Officer Removal Statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442. The defendants specifically claimed that federal inspectors from military agencies maintained a constant presence at the shipyard during the construction of vessels for the Navy and Coast Guard…

Continue Reading....

Federal Court Remands Two Cases with Nexus to Naval Asbestos Exposure to State Court U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, May 20-21, 2015

In both of the following cases, the federal court remanded the actions back to state court. In the first action, the plaintiffs, the adult children of the decedent, alleged their father was exposed to asbestos while serving in the Navy as a boiler technician from 1960 to 1988. Several defendants moved to remove the case to federal court at the same time that the plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint, seeking to disclaim any claim regarding design-defect or strict-liability where defendants’ actions were compelled by,…

Continue Reading....

Southern District of Illinois Denies Motion to Remand Alleged Aircraft Engine Asbestos Exposure Based on Federal Contractor Defense U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, April 14, 2015

After the plaintiff commenced an action alleging asbestos exposure in connection with Air Force aircraft engines, the defendants removed the action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1), which permits removal “by federal officers or any persons acting under a federal officer for any act under color of such office where such person asserts a colorable defense.” The plaintiff moved to remand the case, claiming the defendants could not establish a colorable defense in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Boyle, which…

Continue Reading....

Federal Court Refuses to Remand State Law Asbestos Case Where Discovery Was Completed and Dispositive Motions Decided District of Maryland, March 24, 2015

In this case, the plaintiff commenced an action in Maryland state court and alleged the decedent’s exposure to asbestos while working at a Coast Guard yard, as a floor tile salesman, and in connection with residential work. The case was originally removed to federal court under federal question jurisdiction, based on the claimed exposure at the Coast Guard yard. After the case proceeded through discovery, all the defendants associated with the claimed shipyard exposure were either dismissed or settled, leaving Union Carbide as the remaining…

Continue Reading....

Court Remanded Case, Finding No Colorable Federal Contractor Defense U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, February 24, 2015

In this mesothelioma case, the plaintiff brought suit in Maryland State Court claiming exposure to asbestos products while working at a Baltimore shipyard, which then resulted in some of the defendants removing the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1) alleging a federal contractor defense. The plaintiff moved to remand, claiming that the removing defendants did not meet their burden of meeting the three-prong test for asserting a colorable federal contractor defense. The district court agreed that the defendants did not meet their…

Continue Reading....