Shipyard’s Removal to Federal Court Granted Based on New Case Law

In a case previously covered by Asbestos Case Tracker, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to remand after Avondale removed this case to federal court. In this instant matter, defendant Avondale  again removed this case relying on the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., a case in which it overturned the court’s prior “causal nexus” jurisprudence and adopted a broader “relating to” test. The plaintiff again moves for remand arguing (1) that the defendant’s removal was untimely and (2) that the …

Continue Reading

Remand Denied Based on Recent Decision on Federal Officer Removal Statute

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, June 10, 2020

Plaintiff William Hulin alleged he contracted lung cancer as a result of exposure to asbestos containing products for which the defendants were liable. Specifically, he believed he had been exposed to asbestos while working as a tacker welder at Avondale Industries from 1956 to 1973. Prior to filing the complaint, the plaintiff filed an ex parte petition to take his deposition.  The plaintiff’s deposition was taken on October 3, 2019 and was circulated …

Continue Reading

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Supplemental & Amended Complaint Granted

LOUISIANA – The plaintiff, Victor Michel, filed suit in Louisiana State Civil Court against 29 defendants on July 28, 2017. Specifically, the plaintiff sought damages from the defendant, Ford Motor Company, as an asbestos miner, manufacturer, seller, supplier, or distributor. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that between 1968 and 1969, he worked as a mechanic at Crescent Ford in New Orleans, Louisiana where he conducted routine maintenance on vehicles, including changing brakes and clutches and overhauling engines. The plaintiff also alleged employer and premises …

Continue Reading

Plaintiff Granted Remand After Shipyard’s Removal to Federal Court

LOUISIANA – The plaintiff, Denis Schexnayder, alleged that he contracted lung cancer as a result of exposure to asbestos from multiple defendants, including Avondale. The plaintiff brought suit against Avondale for its failure to warn about asbestos hazards and provide adequate safety equipment and procedures. The plaintiff alleged that he and his father performed work at the Avondale shipyard pursuant to contracts between Avondale and the United States government for the construction of vessels. These contracts included requirements that Avondale use asbestos-containing materials.

On July …

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court Decision Quells Disagreement Over Bare Metal Defense in Maritime Cases

In the past few years, the bare metal defense has seen inconsistent and nebulous holdings around the nation. The bare metal defense vindicates an asbestos defendant that manufactured a product that was made of only metal without asbestos but later utilized asbestos components within its products. The defense is commonly seen amongst pump and valve manufacturers and also in United States Navy cases, thereby implicating maritime law. Examples of trial courts granting summary judgment for the defense only to be overturned on appeal are readily …

Continue Reading

Second Notice of Removal by Pump Defendant Found Timely Despite Administrative Close of Original Action

NEW YORK – The plaintiff Francis Keating filed suit against dozens of companies alleging he contracted lung cancer as a result of exposure to asbestos containing products for which the defendants were liable. Specifically, he believed he had been exposed to asbestos while working as a machinist in the United States Navy from 1953-1974 and while working for Eastman Kodak and Motorola as a refrigeration technician during the 1970s and 1980s. Aurora Pump Co. contacted the plaintiff and sought the plaintiff’s consent for the entry …

Continue Reading

Remand Granted After Shipyard Defendant Fails to Establish Causal Nexus Required By Federal Officer Removal Statute

LOUISIANA — The plaintiffs filed this action against many defendants including Huntington Ingalls (Avondale) alleging their decedent contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos while working at Avondale Shipyard from 1964-1972. Avondale removed the case asserting Federal Officer Removal Statute. The plaintiff moved to remand arguing that Avondale could not satisfy the elements required under Federal Officer Removal Statute.

According to the court, Avondale must show that it 1) that the person is within the meaning of the statute 2) that it has …

Continue Reading

Elements for Removal Found Under Federal Officer Jurisdiction in Take-Home Mesothelioma Case

LOUISIANA — The plaintiff filed suit against several defendants including Kaiser Aluminum (Kaiser) and Huntington Ingalls (Avondale) alleging her mother, Dolores Punch, contracted mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos while washing the work clothes of her husband and son. Mr. Punch worked as a pipefitter and welder at Avondale Shipyard from 1948-1960 and at Kaiser Aluminum from 1961-1967 handling the same material. The decedent’s son also worked as a helper and pipefitter at Avondale from 1976-1979.  Avondale removed the suit to federal court asserting the Federal …

Continue Reading

Defendant Fails to Meet Removal Requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)

CALIFORNIA — The plaintiff Randolph Morton (Plaintiff or Morton) filed this personal injury claim in California state court alleging that Morton’s asbestos-related disease was allegedly caused by the defendants’ acts and omissions involving the use of asbestos at or in the vicinity of Morton’s workplace.

The defendant removed the case to federal court (United States District Court, Central District of California) based on federal office removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a).  Here, defendant seeks to put forth the government contractor defense, which outlines that …

Continue Reading

Lack of Federal Officer Subject Matter Jurisdiction Leads to Grant of Remand and Award of Fees

The plaintiff filed this action alleging he developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos for which the defendants were liable. Specifically, The plaintiff claimed exposure while serving in the United States Navy onboard the U.S.S. Tortuga from 1956-1959.

Defendant Aurora Pump Company (Aurora) removed the case the federal court asserting Federal Officer Removal. The plaintiffs moved to remand. The court began its analysis by stating that removal may be invoked when a defendant establishes that 1) that it is a person within the …

Continue Reading