Douglas Leite v. Crane Company
749 F.3d 1117
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Plaintiffs (former Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard machinists) sued Crane Co. in Hawaii state court for failing to warn about asbestos exposure from Navy equipment Crane supplied.
- Crane removed under the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), invoking the government-contractor defense.
- Crane attached affidavits (retired Navy admirals, a medical historian, and a Crane safety VP) and Navy procurement specifications to support removal.
- Plaintiffs moved to remand, contesting the truth and admissibility of Crane’s factual showing (a factual attack), including evidentiary objections under Rule 702.
- District courts denied remand; the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether factual challenges to § 1442 removal require defendants to prove jurisdictional facts by a preponderance and whether district courts may resolve such disputes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Standard for challenges to removal jurisdiction | Remand should be granted because Crane failed to prove required factual predicates for § 1442 removal | Removing defendant need not prove merits but must meet jurisdictional factual requirements when challenged | Court: Apply Rule 12(b)(1) framework; plaintiff may mount facial or factual attack and factual attacks require competent evidence (summary-judgment–type proof) |
| 2. Burden of proof on factual attack | Crane has not met its burden by preponderance on causal nexus and colorable defense | Crane must prove by preponderance when plaintiffs mount a factual attack | Court: Crane bears preponderance burden to establish colorable federal defense and causal nexus |
| 3. Scope of evidence district court may consider | Plaintiffs: district court must exclude unreliable expert portions and then remand if proof lacking | Crane: district court may consider affidavits, specs, and other evidence to determine jurisdiction | Court: District court may resolve disputed jurisdictional facts (except where intertwined with merits) and may consider evidence; admissibility objections are relevant but need not defeat a colorable showing |
| 4. Whether Crane made a colorable government-contractor defense and causal nexus | Plaintiffs: Affidavits are speculative, inadmissible under Rule 702, and insufficient to show Navy-directed omissions | Crane: Affidavits and Navy specs show Navy prescribed warnings, Crane complied, and Navy knew at least as much about asbestos—establishing colorable defense and nexus | Court: Crane made a colorable showing of the Boyle government-contractor defense and proved causal nexus by preponderance; removal proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (recognizes government-contractor defense)
- Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402 (Sup. Ct. 1969) (defendant need not win merits to remove under federal-officer statute)
- Jefferson Cnty. v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423 (Sup. Ct. 1999) (standard for assessing colorable federal defense)
- Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2006) (analysis of federal-officer removal)
- Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2011) (application of Boyle to contractor failure-to-warn claims)
- Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2004) (distinction between facial and factual attacks on jurisdiction)
- Norse v. City of Santa Cruz, 629 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2010) (evidentiary standard for factual jurisdictional attacks)
- Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (Sup. Ct. 2010) (jurisdictional proof standards)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (pleading standards)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (pleading standards)