Bartel ex rel. Estate of Bishop v. Alcoa Steamship Co.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168290
| M.D. La. | 2014Background
- Consolidated actions removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §1441 and §1442 regarding a state-court mesothelioma action.
- Plaintiff William E. Bartel, as personal representative of Silas B. Bishop, sued numerous vessel-owning/operators for asbestos exposure (1941–1985).
- Plaintiff pleaded Jones Act and general maritime law claims; no jury demand.
- Defendants APL and Hess removed; Hess consents; removal based on federal officer removal and admiralty jurisdiction arguments.
- Plaintiff moved to remand arguing Jones Act claims are non-removable under §1445(a) and general maritime claims under the saving-to-suitors clause; also challenged §1442 nexus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| whether §1441 allows removal where a non-removable Jones Act claim exists | Bartel contends Jones Act claims are non-removable, forcing remand | Bartel argues general maritime claims are removable post-2011 amendments | Jones Act claims non-removable; §1441 not enough for entire removal |
| whether §1441(c) permits removal of a mixed federal/non-removable claim scenario | Bartel asserts §1441(c) cannot apply as no separate federal question claim | Defendants rely on post-2011 §1441(c) to allow removal of maritime claims | §1441(c) does not support removal here; no independent federal-question claim asserted |
| whether removal under §1442 is proper given lack of causal nexus and federal-direction evidence | Bartel argues no nexus or direction; cannot satisfy §1442 requirements | APL argues it acted under federal officer direction with nexus to claims | Removal under §1442(a)(1) not established; no causal nexus or evidence of directive control |
| whether federal officer removal preempts remand under Jones Act non-removability | Bartel relies on Jones Act non-removability to defeat removal | Defendants contend §1442 can provide independent basis | Plaintiff’s claims not removable under §1445; §1442 not satisfied; remand warranted |
| whether this action should be remanded to state court | Bartel seeks remand on all grounds | Defendants urge federal jurisdiction via §1441/§1442 | Remand GRANTED; action remanded to the 19th Judicial District Court |
Key Cases Cited
- Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 (1959) (maritime claims do not arise under federal question jurisdiction)
- Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990) (federal courts retain exclusive jurisdiction over maritime claims; admiralty context)
- Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438 (2001) (§1445(a) bars removal of Jones Act claims even with diversity)
- Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chemical Co., 149 F.3d 387 (5th Cir.1998) (federal officer removal requirements and nexus analysis)
- Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335 (5th Cir.2000) (strict construction of removal; doubts resolved against jurisdiction)