Bartel v. Alcoa Steamship Co., 805 F.3d 169

Three former merchant mariners (Bishop, Dennis, Craig) sued former civilian employers under the Jones Act and general maritime law for asbestos exposure allegedly causing injury or death.
Each plaintiff served at some point aboard United States Naval Ships (USNS) — Navy-owned vessels operated by civilian contractors (Mathiasen Tanker Industry, American President Lines, American Overseas Marine Corp.).
Defendants removed the actions to federal court invoking the Federal Officer Removal Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), arguing they acted under federal direction when operating Navy-owned ships.
Plaintiffs’ complaints primarily alleged failures to warn, train, and adopt safety procedures regarding asbestos (operational acts/omissions), not purely defective vessel design.
The district court remanded, finding defendants failed to prove the required causal nexus between federal direction and plaintiffs’ claims; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) was proper	Plaintiffs argued cases belonged in state court; removal improper	Defendants argued they are "persons acting under a federal officer" because they operated Navy-owned ships and thus removal is proper	Removal improper; remand affirmed because defendants failed to show required causal nexus
Causal nexus requirement between federal direction and claims	Plaintiffs: their claims arise from employers' operational failures, not government orders	Defendants: Navy ownership/control of ships supplies causal nexus	Court: mere ownership/control without evidence of government direction or supervision of the relevant operations is insufficient to establish causal nexus
Whether government ownership and contractual relationship alone suffice	Plaintiffs: ownership does not substitute for direct orders or ongoing supervision	Defendants: contracting to operate naval vessels suffices	Court rejected defendants’ collapse of elements; ownership/contract alone insufficient absent evidence of specific federal orders or supervision
Consideration of defendants’ late unseaworthiness argument on appeal	Plaintiffs rely on existing failure-to-warn framing; opposed expanding grounds	Defendants raised a new argument at oral argument that claims allege intrinsic unseaworthiness	Not considered: Fifth Circuit refused to consider argument raised first on appeal/oral argument absent extraordinary circumstances

Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co., 149 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. 1998) (explains elements for removal under the Federal Officer Removal Statute, including causal nexus and colorable federal defense)
Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720 (5th Cir. 2002) (instructs to assess removed claims as they existed at time of removal)
N. Alamo Water Supply Corp. v. City of San Juan, Tex., 90 F.3d 910 (5th Cir. 1996) (extraordinary-circumstances rule for considering issues raised first on appeal)
Whitehead v. Food Max of Mississippi, Inc., 163 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 1998) (court will not generally consider points raised first at oral argument)
IMPC Prof'l Svcs. of Fla., Inc. v. Latin Am. Home Health, Inc., 676 F.2d 152 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (dismissal of a federal officer defendant does not deprive district court of removal jurisdiction)
Bartel v. Alcoa Steamship Co., 64 F. Supp. 3d 843 (M.D. La. 2014) (collects failure-to-warn cases holding government ownership alone insufficient for federal-officer removal when contractor controlled safety)