Bruce Betzner v. Boeing Company, 910 F.3d 1010

Background

Bruce and Barbara Betzner sued Boeing in Illinois state court for asbestos-related injuries allegedly caused by Boeing-manufactured parts used while Bruce worked on B-1/B-1B aircraft for the U.S. Air Force.
Boeing removed under the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a), invoking a government-contractor defense tied to military contracts and specifications for the B-1/B-1B program.
The Betzners did not move to remand or contest Boeing’s factual allegations in the removal notice.
The district court sua sponte remanded, concluding Boeing had to submit evidentiary support for its government-contractor defense and that the notice lacked supporting affidavits or exhibits.
Boeing moved for reconsideration; the district court denied it and held Boeing’s allegations were bare and insufficient.
Boeing appealed; the Seventh Circuit reviewed de novo and considered whether Boeing’s notice plausibly alleged facts satisfying § 1442(a) without requiring evidentiary submissions at the removal stage.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a removing defendant must submit evidentiary support with its § 1442(a) notice	Betzners: The record lacked factual basis; Boeing’s bare assertions insufficient without evidence	Boeing: Removal pleading need only satisfy Rule 8(a); no evidentiary submissions required at notice stage	The court held evidentiary submissions are not required; pleadings must be judged under Rule 8(a) and Dart Cherokee principles
Whether Boeing plausibly alleged it was a “person” acting under the U.S. government	Betzners: Boeing failed to show it acted under federal officers for the relevant conduct	Boeing: It contracted to design/manufacture B-1/B-1B under detailed military control and specifications	Court held Boeing (a corporation) met the “person” requirement and plausibly alleged it acted under federal authority
Whether Boeing alleged a causal connection between alleged misconduct and federal authority (acting under color of federal authority)	Betzners: No adequate factual link showing the military’s specifications caused the alleged asbestos exposure	Boeing: Manufacturing occurred under sole direction and precise specs of the Air Force, connecting conduct to official authority	Court held Boeing plausibly alleged the causal nexus between government control/specifications and the challenged conduct
Whether Boeing alleged a colorable government-contractor defense (Boyle factors)	Betzners: No evidentiary record shows the government approved precise specs, conformity, or government knowledge of hazards	Boeing: Alleged the military approved precise specifications, Boeing conformed, and the government knew asbestos risks	Court held Boeing’s allegations were facially plausible and therefore colorable, making removal proper

Key Cases Cited

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014) (Rule 8(a)-style pleading suffices for removal notices; evidentiary submissions not required at notice stage)
Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., 551 U.S. 142 (2007) (liberal construction of federal-officer removal statute)
Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402 (1969) (defendant need not win on the merits to remove under § 1442)
Boyle v. United Techs. Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988) (government-contractor defense elements and standard)
Hercules, Inc. v. United States, 516 U.S. 417 (1996) (application of the government-contractor defense)
Ruppel v. CBS Corp., 701 F.3d 1176 (7th Cir. 2012) (§ 1442(a) removal requires a plausible federal defense; pleading standard for federal-officer removal)
Lu Junhong v. Boeing Co., 792 F.3d 805 (7th Cir. 2015) (Dart Cherokee applied beyond amount-in-controversy; jurisdictional allegations need only be plausible)
Panther Brands, LLC v. Indy Racing League, LLC, 827 F.3d 586 (7th Cir. 2016) (elements of federal-officer removal described)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard under Rule 8)