Category Archives: Remand/Removal

Removal Found Procedurally Proper Based on Diversity U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, October 24, 2016

The plaintiffs, Nolan and Susan Legeaux, brought a motion to remand their asbestos case from federal court arguing that removing defendants failed to follow the correct removal procedure, that there are non-diverse defendants, and that the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442, is not applicable to the facts of the case. The motion was opposed by defendants Puget Sound Commerce Center, Inc., Vigor Industrial LLC, and Vigor Shipyards, Inc. The plaintiffs’ motion was denied. The court found there was nothing procedurally improper about…

Continue Reading....

Case Remanded on Basis of Failure of Removing Party to Meet Burden of Proof on Improper Joinder U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, September 14, 2016

Plaintiff William Bozeman brought suit alleging exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products caused him to contract mesothelioma. Mr. Bozeman, a Louisiana resident, worked for Arizona Chemical Company, later known as International Paper Company, from 1975 to 1981 and 1981 to 1999 in Louisiana and claims he was exposed while on the job. He filed suit in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish. On September 9, 2016 defendant Wyeth Holding Corp., formerly known as American Cyanamid Company removed the case to the U.S. District Court…

Continue Reading....

Remand Granted Based on Finding that Plaintiffs Acted in Good Faith Naming Defendant With State Contact U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, August 22, 2016

The plaintiffs sued multiple defendants including several “citizens” of California. Four days before trial defendant John Crane Inc. removed the case to federal court on diversity. The plaintiff then moved to remand. The court began its analysis by stating the legal standard for removal which permits removal when the federal court could have “exercised original jurisdiction” in the case. Additionally, the burden falls upon the removing defendant. A case may be removed under diversity unless one of the parties is a properly joined and served…

Continue Reading....

Plaintiff’s Attempt to Avoid Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Disclaiming Federal Officer Claims Unsuccessful U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, August 5, 2016

The plaintiff asserted various claims against 78 defendants due to mesothelioma developed from alleged asbestos exposure incurred during his civilian work in the Navy from 1958-64, Kambien from 1966-69, and Polaroid from 1969-97.  The plaintiff attempted to make the action un-removable by disclaiming any relief for injuries sustained upon a federal enclave or as a result of malfeasance of persons acting as federal officers. However, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony triggered defendant Crane’s right to remove.  Crane timely removed and the plaintiff moved to remand, which…

Continue Reading....

U.S. District Court Applies Foreign State Removal and Denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, July 14, 2016

The plaintiff brought an action against multiple defendants for his alleged occupational exposure to lung cancer while working as a longshoreman for different stevedoring companies from 1954-1979. Included with the numerous defendants was Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa, Ltd. (IDC) and South African Marine. The plaintiff’s claims included negligence, strict liability, intentional tort, and premises liability. Specific to IDC and South African Marine, the plaintiff asserted claims under the Jones Act. Immediately after filing suit, the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss his claims…

Continue Reading....

Indiana Found to be Proper Venue in Federal Court Case that was Previously Transferred Based on Convenience and in the Interest of Justice U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hannond Division, July 13, 2016

In this federal court case, the plaintiff, Clovis Aresnault, commenced an action in the Northern District of Indiana alleging exposure to asbestos while working in steel mills in Illinois and at a plant located both in Illinois and the Northern District of Indiana. The case was transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as part of the multi-district litigation. The case was remanded back to Indiana after an order granted part of defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff subsequently moved to transfer the case…

Continue Reading....

Magistrate Judge Recommends Remand to State Court; Removal was Timely, but Defendant Failed to Establish Two of Four Elements of Federal Officer Statute U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, June 10, 2016

The plaintiffs filed this personal injury suit in Delaware after the plaintiff Donnie Wines was diagnosed with mesothelioma. Both plaintiffs died before the suit was completed, and their personal representative was substituted. Defendant Rockwell Automation Inc. removed to federal court. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand, arguing: (1) that the notice of removal was untimely, and (2) Rockwell did not meet the requirements of the federal officer removal statute. The magistrate judge recommended that the court grant the plaintiff’s motion. The plaintiff claimed exposure…

Continue Reading....

Diversity Jurisdiction Not Established Where Volkswagen Failed to Prove Fraudulent Joinder of Missouri Defendant U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, May 26, 2016

Nebraska plaintiffs filed an action in Missouri state court after the decedent died of mesothelioma.  After five defendants remained, defendant Volkswagen filed for removal based upon diversity jurisdiction, and alleged that the defendant, J.P. Bushnell Packing Supply Company, a Missouri corporation, was fraudulently joined.  This matter was before the court sua sponte to determine whether jurisdiction existed.  Finding no jurisdiction, the court remanded. Any doubts about the propriety of removal are resolved in favor of remand.  In diversity jurisdiction, complete diversity exists where no defendant…

Continue Reading....

Cause Remanded to State Court After Federal Officer Defendants Dismissed U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, May 19, 2016

The plaintiff filed an asbestos suit in Missouri; defendant Crane Co. removed to federal court based on federal officer jurisdiction, in which Warren Pumps and CBS Corporation joined.  All three defendants were dismissed and the plaintiff moved to remand, which the court granted.  “…[I]f the federal party is eliminated from the suit after removal…the district court does not lose its…jurisdiction over the state law claims against the remaining non-federal parties…Instead, the district court retains the power either to adjudicate the underlying state law claims or…

Continue Reading....

Fourth Circuit Upholds Summary Judgment on Substantial Factor Causation and Affirms Denial of Remand Based on Federal Officer Jurisdiction U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, May 6, 2016

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in two consolidated appeals upholding the granting of summary judgment to defendants CBS Corporation, General Electric Corporation (GE), MCIC (local insulation contractor), Paramount Packing & Rubber Company, Phelps Packing & Rubber Company, SB Decking, Inc., Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust (local insulation contractor), and Foster-Wheeler Energy Corporation. The two consolidated cases involved alleged exposures to dust asbestos-containing products manufactured, supplied, or installed by the defendants at Baltimore, Maryland area shipyards. On appeal,…

Continue Reading....