Citrano v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., 1 F. Supp. 3d 459

Citrano, now deceased, sued GE and many non-removing defendants for asbestos-related state-law torts arising from exposure in the 1960s–1970s; suit originally filed in Baltimore City Circuit Court and later removed to federal court by GE under § 1442(a)(1).
Plaintiffs allege exposure at various worksites, including the U.S.S. Santa Barbara in 1968–1971, with cited defendants’ products and materials allegedly contributing to exposure.
GE removed citing Navy control over turbine design, manufacture, and warnings, arguing a federal contractor defense and a causal nexus between its acts under federal direction and the plaintiffs’ claims.
The plaintiffs moved to remand or to sever and remand the non-removing defendants; GE submitted declarations detailing Navy specifications, control over manuals and warnings, and Betts’s Navy health-knowledge conclusions.
The court analyzed removal jurisdiction, timeliness, colorable federal defenses, and the potential for severance and supplemental jurisdiction, ultimately denying remand and addressing severance considerations.
The case was consolidated with related suits and involves extensive Navy-matters evidence, including milspecs, manuals, and safety-warning control by the Navy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of removal under § 1442(a)(1).	Plaintiffs contend no grounds for removal were apparent from initial pleadings.	GE asserts discovery responses identifying Navy ship exposure trigger timely removal within 30 days.	Removal timely.
Whether GE has a colorable federal contractor defense.	GE cannot show Navy knowledge of asbestos dangers comparable to GE's, defeating defense.	Navy control over warnings and knowledge sufficed to support a colorable defense.	Colorable federal contractor defense established.
Causal connection between the state claims and acts under color of federal office.	No causal nexus shown between offshore federal acts and state-law claims.	Navy directives and approvals create direct causal link to state claims.	Causal connection shown; removal proper.
Whether severance/remand of non-removing defendants should be granted.	Should remand, non-removing defendants' claims would be remanded to state court.	severance would be prejudicial; ancillary jurisdiction applies and remand inappropriate.	Remand denied; severance considerations weighed against remand at this time.

Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121 (1989) (federal officer removal statute; broad scope of removal authority)
Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402 (1969) (avoid narrow interpretation of § 1442(a)(1))
Boyle v. United Techs. Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988) (federal contractor defense elements (approval, conformity, warning duties))
Lovern v. Gen. Motors Corp., 121 F.3d 160 (1997) (bright-line test for determining when removability grounds are evident from initial pleadings)
Chapman v. Powermatic, Inc., 969 F.2d 160 (1992) (removal considerations and state-law issues in contractor-removal context)
Wilson v. Intercollegiate (Big Ten) Conference Athletic Ass’n, 668 F.2d 962 (1982) (timeliness and procedure in removal)