Category Archives: Federal Officer Removal

Federal Court Defines “Other Paper” in Removal Statute § 1446 U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, June 21, 2017

The plaintiff filed a petition for damages in the 18th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Iberville on February 23, 2017, and named Avondale, among others, as a defendant. The plaintiff alleged he contracted mesothelioma during his employment with Avondale caused by “dangerously high levels of toxic substances, including asbestos and asbestos containing products, in the normal course of his work.” Defendant Avondale filed a notice of removal to the United States District Court of Louisiana on April 28, 2017 under the federal…

Continue Reading....

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand Granted After Defendant Removes on Federal Officer; Sanctions Denied U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, March 31, 2017

The plaintiffs filed this action against multiple defendants including Foster Wheeler for Mr. Hukkanen’s alleged development of mesothelioma after serving as a machinist onboard the USS Somers and USS Walke from 1960 through 1968. Foster Wheeler removed the case, arguing that it was acting under an officer or agency of the United States. Foster Wheeler quickly moved for remand claiming that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs specifically waived claims sounded in military contractors immunity defense. Foster Wheeler took the position that…

Continue Reading....

Case Remanded to State Court Following Resolution of Claims that Invoked Federal Officer Statute U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, March 17, 2017

The plaintiffs commenced this action in state court alleging that various products caused plaintiff Ralph Shonkwiler to develop mesothelioma. Defendant CBS Corporation (Westinghouse) removed the matter to federal court based on the federal officer statute since the plaintiffs claimed exposure to their product was a Navy turbine and the claimed exposure took place while plaintiff was serving in the Navy aboard the U.S.S. Ingram. In January 2017, the plaintiffs informed the court that all claims against Westinghouse were resolved and Westinghouse was dismissed from the…

Continue Reading....

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Finds Removal is Proper Under Federal Officer Removal Statute U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, January 20, 2017

Plaintiff Howard Zeringue brought suit against Crane Co. and various other defendants in state court for injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos. The plaintiff alleged that he was first exposed to asbestos in 1952 while he was deployed with the U.S. Navy and served in various capacities in the Navy aboard three vessels until 1956. The plaintiff also alleged he was later exposed to asbestos at two other jobs. However, the plaintiff did not provide the time period for his alleged post-naval exposure. Crane…

Continue Reading....

Crane Asserted a Colorable Federal Defense to Establish Jurisdiction Under Federal Officer Removal Statute U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, January 9, 2017

The plaintiff sued various defendants for negligence, strict liability, and fraudulent inducement. Crane removed to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, and plaintiff moved to remand. The court denied this motion. To remove under Section 1442(a)(1) the defendant must qualify as a “person” under the federal officer removal statute, must act under the direction of a federal officer at the time the defendant engaged in the allegedly tortious act, and must advance a “colorable federal defense.” Also, a causal connection must appear between…

Continue Reading....

Affidavits Used in Other Cases Enough to Establish Removal Under Federal Officer Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, November 30, 2016

The plaintiff brought a wrongful death lawsuit after her husband died of mesothelioma, alleging asbestos exposure during her husband’s service in the Navy. Originally filed in Madison County, Illinois, defendant Crane Co. removed on the basis of the federal officer removal statute. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand, arguing that Crane waived its right to remove by first filing a motion to dismiss in state court, and that Crane failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion. Regarding waiver…

Continue Reading....