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 ReadingCategory: Remand/Removal
Motion to Remand Granted Based on Supporting Documents Showing Asbestos Work of Non-Diverse Defendant and Early Stage of Discovery
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 ReadingCase Remanded to State Court to Hear Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on Personal Jurisdiction as State Court Issues Predominate Case
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 ReadingPlaintiff’s Motion to Remand Granted and Attorneys’ Fees Awarded to Plaintiff; Defendant’s Notice of Removal Both Substantively and Procedurally Improper
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 ReadingDistrict Court Relies on Plain Language of Forum-Defendant Rule in Denying Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Remand
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 ReadingCase Remanded to State Court Despite Defendant’s Claim Plaintiffs Acted in Bad Faith with Claims Against Non-Diverse Defendant
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 ReadingFederal Court Remands Case to State Court Based on Plaintiff’s Waiver of Federal Claims Against Removing Defendant
On June 15, 2015, plaintiffs Charles Ford and Carol Ford filed an action in the Alameda County Superior Court alleging state law claims for Mr. Ford’s exposure to asbestos from numerous defendants. Defendant Foster Wheeler Energy removed the matter to federal court in November 2015 following Mr. Ford’s testimony that he worked aboard the USS Oklahoma City while working for the Bethlehem Shipyards in the late 1960s. In December 2015, the laintiffs filed a notice of waiver, which stated that they waive any claims against …
Continue ReadingFederal Magistrate Judge Recommends Denial of Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand in Two Cases Originating in Delaware
In two nearly identical cases from the District of Delaware, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation, recommending the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion to remand to state court.
In the first case, the plaintiff husband and wife alleged that the husband developed mesothelioma through exposure to asbestos while serving as a boiler tender in the Navy, while working at the shipyard, and through personal automotive work. In the second case, the plaintiff husband and wife alleged that the husband developed mesothelioma through asbestos …
Continue Reading