Connie Dietrich v. the Boeing Company, 14 F.4th 1089

Connie Dietrich sued multiple defendants in 2018 for asbestos exposure; her complaint did not allege that exposure occurred through her husband’s work for the military or through Boeing’s work for the U.S. military.
Dietrich expressly excepted Boeing from a strict-liability cause of action and limited alleged exposure locations to sites tied to Douglas (a Boeing predecessor) in California, creating ambiguity about any military nexus.
Dietrich produced some military records in November 2018 (per local court order) but did not affirmatively state a military-based theory against Boeing until amended discovery responses served April 19, 2019.
Boeing removed the case to federal court under the federal-officer removal statute on May 16, 2019 (28 U.S.C. § 1442). The district court remanded as untimely under § 1446(b)(3) and awarded Dietrich attorneys’ fees.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit (invoking appellate jurisdiction after BP P.L.C.) reversed: it adopted an “unequivocally clear and certain” standard for § 1446(b)(3), held depositions are not “other paper,” found Boeing’s removal timely, and vacated the fee award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does the 30‑day removal clock under § 1446(b)(3) begin?	It begins when plaintiff discloses "sufficient facts" permitting removal (as interpreted from Durham).	It begins only when an amended pleading, motion, order, or other paper makes removability "unequivocally clear and certain."	Adopted the "unequivocally clear and certain" standard for § 1446(b)(3).
Do oral depositions qualify as an "other paper" that can start the § 1446(b)(3) clock?	Deposition testimony can start the clock once it reveals removability.	Oral testimony is not a "paper" and cannot start the clock.	Oral depositions are not "other paper;" only written/recorded papers count.
Was Boeing’s May 16, 2019 removal timely?	Removal was untimely; Dietrich’s discovery and depositions provided "ample" facts earlier.	Timely; the federal‑officer basis did not become unequivocally clear until Dietrich’s April 19, 2019 amended discovery responses.	Boeing’s removal was timely because removability was not unequivocally clear before April 19, 2019.
Was the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees appropriate?	Fees appropriate because removal was not objectively reasonable.	Fees improper because removal was reasonable under the adopted standard.	Fee award vacated; parties to bear their own costs on appeal.

Harris v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 425 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (articulated principles favoring bright‑line rules and certainty for removal timing)
Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2006) (discussed when disclosure of facts supporting federal‑officer removal triggers removal period)
Bosky v. Kroger Tex., LP, 288 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 2002) (endorsed "unequivocally clear and certain" standard for § 1446(b)(3))
BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 141 S. Ct. 1532 (U.S. 2021) (held courts of appeals may review remand orders when removal was under § 1442 or § 1443)
Roth v. CHA Hollywood Med. Ctr., L.P., 720 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2013) (explained a defendant may remove before it must do so)
Morgan v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 879 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 2018) (held oral deposition testimony is not an "other paper" under § 1446(b)(3))
Huffman v. Saul Holdings Ltd. P'ship, 194 F.3d 1072 (10th Cir. 1999) (contrasting view that removal period can commence with deposition testimony)