U.S. District Court Applies Foreign State Removal and Denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Remanded Where GE Failed to Satisfy Requirements of Federal Officer Removal Due to Plaintiff’s Specific Disclaimer of No Naval Asbestos Exposure

In this case, the plaintiff claimed that he was exposed to asbestos and contracted mesothelioma from products allegedly manufactured, supplied, installed, and/or distributed by numerous defendants. The plaintiff asserted in the complaint that he served in the U.S. Navy from 1962–66 but provided the disclaimer that the “[p]laintiff was not exposed to asbestos and is not bringing any claim for exposure to asbestos-containing products during Plaintiff’s service in the Navy.”

One of the defendants, General Electric Company (GE), removed the case to the U.S. District …

Continue Reading

Defendant’s Failure to Warn Boilermaker Employees in the Shipyard Itself Prohibited Federal Contractor Defense

The decedent in this case died of mesothelioma and his representatives filed an action in state court. Defendant Foster Wheeler removed this case to federal court under the officer removal statute. The plaintiff moved to remand, which the court granted.

The plaintiffs alleged exposure during the decedent’s work at Bethlehem Steel Sparrows Point Shipyard, while working as a boiler maker from 1948-1970s. Foster Wheeler removed on the basis that it was acting under an officer or agency of the United States, because it made boilers …

Continue Reading

Federal Court of Appeals Vacates U.S. District Court Judgment Dismissing Two Defendants for Improper Joinder and Orders Remand of Mesothelioma Case

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

U.S. District Court Exercises Supplemental Jurisdiction and Denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand

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