Cuomo v. Crane Co.
771 F.3d 113
2d Cir.2014Background
- Cuomo sued Crane Co. and others in New York state court for failure-to-warn asbestos exposure from Crane valves supplied to Navy ships.
- Crane removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), asserting a colorable federal contractor defense.
- Crane proffered affidavits and exhibits: Navy specifications for valves, and testimony that the Navy allowed no deviations from those specs relying on Crane.
- Cuomo countered with testimony arguing Navy relied on manufacturers to identify hazards and that labels could have been added.
- The district court remanded, finding Crane had not shown that Navy specifications prohibited or dictated asbestos warnings.
- The Second Circuit reviews de novo whether removal is proper and whether a colorable federal defense exists for removal purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal was proper under § 1442(a)(1) based on a colorable federal contractor defense | Cuomo contends Crane failed to show Navy dictated or prohibited warnings | Crane asserts Navy specifications control warnings, creating a colorable defense | Yes; Crane's evidence created a colorable federal defense sufficient for removal |
| Scope of the federal contractor defense at removal stage | Cuomo argues strict proof of Navy prohibition required | Crane argues any governance by Navy suffices if it limits warnings | A colorable defense suffices; not need to conclusively prove at removal |
| Whether government-dictated content must be literal or may be implied by specifications | Cuomo asserts government must dictate literal warning text | Crane contends control can be through discretionary safety decisions within specs | Dictation can be satisfied by government-controlled safety considerations within specifications |
Key Cases Cited
- Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402 (1969) (scope of federal officer removal not narrow)
- Isaacson v. Dow Chem. Co., 517 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2008) (three-part test for removal; colorable defense sufficient)
- Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633 (2006) (purely jurisdictional test; colorable defense suffices for removal)
- Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225 (2007) (federal court determination of disputed facts on removal)
- Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 517 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2008) (defense articulated for government-approved specifications)
- In re Joint Eastern & Southern Dist. N.Y. Asbestos Litig., 897 F.2d 626 (2d Cir. 1990) (government dictated content may be inferred from specifications)
- Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988) (federal contractor defense framework)
- Jefferson County, Ala. v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423 (1999) (removal jurisdiction principles and defense viability)