James Latiolais v. Eagle, Incorporated, 918 F.3d 406

Plaintiff James Latiolais, a U.S. Navy machinist, was exposed to asbestos while the USS Tappahannock was refurbished at Avondale shipyard in the 1960s–1970s and later developed mesothelioma; he died in 2017.
Latiolais sued Avondale in Louisiana state court alleging negligent failure to warn and inadequate safety equipment (no strict liability claims pleaded).
Avondale removed the action to federal court under the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1); the district court remanded for lack of a sufficient causal nexus between federal direction and the alleged negligence.
Avondale argued the 2011 amendment adding the phrase "for or relating to" broadened removal so that only a relation (not a strict causal nexus) is required, and alternatively that its only contact with Latiolais derived from its government work.
The Fifth Circuit panel affirmed remand, holding it is bound by preexisting Fifth Circuit precedent (Bartel and progeny) applying a causal-nexus test that distinguishes negligence (not removable) from strict-liability claims (removable) when government did not control safety practices.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1442(a)(1) removal is satisfied by the post-2011 "relating to" language without a causal nexus	Remand (Latiolais): government did not control shipyard safety so removal improper	Avondale: "relating to" broadens statute; no strict causal nexus required	Remand affirmed: Fifth Circuit bound by Bartel/Legendre applying causal-nexus test and rejecting a loose "relates to" standard
Whether Avondale met the causal-nexus requirement because Latiolais’s relationship with Avondale derived solely from federal work	Latiolais: relationship did not make negligent failure-to-warn an act under color of federal office	Avondale: contact with Latiolais arose only from Navy contract; Willingham supports removal where relationship derives solely from official duties	Held: Insufficient — factual record shows Navy did not control shipyard safety, so causal nexus not established under Fifth Circuit precedent
Whether Bartel’s causal-nexus rule should be overruled here (en banc)	Latiolais: Bartel applies; negligence claims remain non-removable absent government control	Avondale: Bartel misapplies the 2011 amendment and should be reconsidered en banc to give effect to "relating to"	Held: Panel is bound by Bartel/Legendre; suggests en banc reconsideration desirable but does not change outcome (remand affirmed)

Bartel v. Alcoa S.S. Co., 805 F.3d 169 (5th Cir. 2015) (articulates Fifth Circuit causal-nexus test for § 1442 removal)
Legendre v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 885 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2018) (reaffirms Bartel and applies causal-nexus rule post-2011 amendment)
Zeringue v. Crane Co., 846 F.3d 785 (5th Cir. 2017) (discusses post-2011 language but distinguishes strict-liability claims from negligence claims)
Savoie v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 817 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 2016) (holds negligence-based asbestos claims not removable when government did not control safety procedures; strict-liability claims removable)
Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1969) (federal-officer removal satisfied where defendant's relationship to plaintiff derived solely from official duties)
In re Commonwealth's Motion to Appoint Counsel Against or Directed to Defender Ass'n of Phila., 790 F.3d 457 (3d Cir. 2015) (interprets "relating to" to require only a connection or association)
Sawyer v. Foster Wheeler LLC, 860 F.3d 249 (4th Cir. 2017) (reads 2011 amendment to broaden § 1442 removal to require a connection or association)
Ruppel v. CBS Corp., 701 F.3d 1176 (7th Cir. 2012) (applies causal-nexus principles to permit removal where plaintiff was a Navy service member interacting with contractor)