The plaintiff filed an action against multiple defendants for his alleged mesothelioma as a result of his occupational exposure to asbestos. The case was removed to federal court. Discovery took place over the course of eleven months. The plaintiff passed away and The defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted as the estate and family did not substitute plaintiffs. The family then filed a survival and wrongful death action in state court but added a new allegation that the plaintiff had been exposed to asbestos insulation …Continue Reading
In this case, the plaintiff, Frank Williams, brought an action in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans for exposure to asbestos while working as a mechanical engineer for Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin removed the case to on the basis of a potential federal defense.
The plaintiff filed a motion to remand, but the court declined to decide the motion and transferred the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for consolidation into the Multi District Litigation “MDL.” Judge Robreno denied the motion …Continue Reading
The plaintiff brought an action for alleged development of mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure on April 15, 2014. After the plaintiff passed on July 7, 2015, his wife filed a second amended complaint, adding a wrongful death and survival claim on October 28, 2015. The defendant removed the case based on diversity jurisdiction and the plaintiff’s moved to remand as untimely.
Although the removal statute requires removal within 30 days from date of service of the complaint, the defendant relied upon two arguments …Continue Reading
In this case, the plaintiffs’ decedent claimed exposure to asbestos containing thermal insulation while working at the Avondale Shipyard in Louisiana as laborer and painter from 1948-1996. The shipyard at issued worked on contracts for the federal government.
The defendants removed the case under federal officer removal and took the position that removal was proper since the government, through Navy inspectors, was involved in the building of the ships and had control of safety issues during construction. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, argued that …Continue Reading
The plaintiff in this case, the decedent’s wife, alleged secondary exposure to her husband through asbestos brought home by the decedent’s father while working as an aircraft mechanic on the base of the Army National Guard. Defendant The Boeing Company removed on federal officer grounds, and the plaintiff filed a motion to remand when four defendants remained — Pep Boys, Continental Motors, Goodyear Tire & Rubber, and IMO Industries. Goodyear was the only defendant which opposed the motion to remand. The court granted the plaintiff’s …Continue Reading
In this case, the plaintiff alleged exposure through his father’s work close from 1953 through the 1970s. The plaintiff’s father worked at the Exxon Baton Rouge facility. The plaintiff also claimed exposure to asbestos as an adult while working as a carpenter at various residential construction sites and as a contractor at Exxon between 1965 through 1978. Defendant Exxon removed the action to federal court based on diversity with the consent of defendants Georgia-Pacific, LLC and Union Carbide Corporation . The plaintiff subsequently moved to …Continue Reading
In this case, the decedent Oscar Villanueva, is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos from various products while working at Glendale Auto Radio Stereo from 1969 to 1990. Defendant FCA US LLC removed the case to federal court since any judgment would have an impact on its bankruptcy estate. Defendant Dr. Ing. H.C.F. Porsche moved to dismiss arguing improper service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff subsequently dismissed the claim against FCA and moved to remand for lack of subject matter …Continue Reading
The plaintiff filed an action in California state court against various defendants after being diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. Defendant O’Reilly Auto Enterprises removed to federal court after it was the only remaining defendant on the basis of diversity. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand and for attorneys’ fees. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion.
O’Reilly’s notice of removal was both substantively and procedurally improper. A complaint that is not initially removable due to non-diversity may become removable where diversity arises due to a plaintiff’s …Continue Reading
The plaintiff filed an asbestos-related lawsuit in Louisiana state court. Defendant Honeywell filed a notice of removal on the basis of diversity, without knowing that its registered agent in Louisiana was personally served one day before filing the removal. At the time of removal, no other defendant had been served. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand, arguing that Honeywell could not remove because one of the defendants (Burmaster) was a resident of Louisiana. The plaintiff also argued Honeywell “jumped the gun” by removing before …Continue Reading
In this case, Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. (ACL) removed the action to federal court on the ground of diversity. The plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that ACL removed the action past the one year deadline to do so. ACL responded that the missing of the deadline to remove is excused since the plaintiffs acted in bad faith by maintaining a claim against a non-diverse defendant, J.T. Thrope & Sons, Inc. (JTTS), to prevent removal. The plaintiffs responded that they were active in prosecuting those claims in …Continue Reading