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 to remand after the court determined Lockheed Martin had a government contractor defense pursuant to federal officer removal. The court granted Lockheed Martin’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff’s children were substituted as parties and moved to remand the case to the Eastern District of Louisiana citing that no outstanding motions were in the case and that the plaintiffs were ready for trial. Again, the plaintiffs moved to remand.
The plaintiffs contended that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction for a lack of diversity since Lockheed was no longer a defendant in the case. The plaintiffs further argued that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because no federal questions remained to be determined. Additionally, the plaintiffs maintained that the court never had subject matter jurisdiction because Lockheed Martin could not establish its government contractor defense. Finally, the plaintiffs took the position that new case law in the Eastern District of Louisiana required the case to be remanded.
The court found many of the plaintiffs’ arguments to be an “insult” to Judge Robreno. Specifically, the court stated that lack of diversity does not destroy subject matter jurisdiction. Although the plaintiff cited cases where the court was unable to maintain supplemental jurisdiction, the court pointed out that those cases involved claims where the basis for federal jurisdiction was absent. The instant case was based on valid federal jurisdiction of federal officer removal. Further, the court discussed that dismissal of federal claims does not negate subject matter jurisdiction. The court agreed with the plaintiff that no federal questions remained but pointed out that the plaintiffs failed to submit any authority that the court loses subject matter jurisdiction as a result. Although the court has the discretion to decline its exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, the court found it was not proper to do so in this case. The court relied on the decision in Batiste v. Island Record Inc., 179 F.3d 217 (5th Cir. 1999). This case, like Batiste, had been pending for a long time, had dispositive motions granted, and dealt with no complex or “novel” issues. Accordingly, there was no reason for the court to not exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Further, the court found the plaintiffs argument that the Court never had subject matter jurisdiction to be “outrageous.” The court noted in particular that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania had already decided the issue of subject matter jurisdiction on two occasions when the plaintiff motions to remand were previously denied. The court also cited that the “principle purpose of MDL is to avoid piecemeal litigation.” Accordingly, the court found nothing justifying the plaintiffs request to vacate the prior decisions or remand.