Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated
2:17-cv-11770
E.D. La.May 4, 2018Background
- Plaintiff James A. Latiolais sued Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (Avondale) and others in Louisiana state court alleging mesothelioma from asbestos exposure while the USS Tappahannock was recommissioned at Avondale; claims against Avondale allege negligence (failure to warn/protect), not strict liability.
- Avondale removed the case to federal court under the Federal Officer Removal Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), after Latiolais’s deposition indicated limited contact with Avondale employees and that the work occurred while the ship was at Avondale.
- Avondale contended it acted under federal direction (Navy) and thus removal was proper; Latiolais moved to remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The legal question focused on whether Avondale satisfied the Winters three-part test for federal-officer removal: (1) defendant is a "person," (2) acted pursuant to federal officer directions with a causal nexus to the claims, and (3) asserts a colorable federal defense.
- The dispute turned on the second factor: whether government direction or control extended to Avondale’s safety practices (the alleged source of plaintiff’s injury). Evidence showed government inspectors did not monitor or enforce shipyard safety and that Avondale’s safety department was responsible for on-the-job safety.
- The court concluded Avondale failed to show the necessary causal nexus between federal direction and the negligent safety practices alleged, so removal under §1442(a)(1) was improper and the case was remanded to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-officer removal under 28 U.S.C. §1442(a)(1) applies | Latiolais: claims are state-law negligence for failure to warn/protect tied to Avondale safety practices, not acts under federal direction | Avondale: was acting under Navy direction during recommissioning of the ship, so removal is authorized | Held: Removal denied — Avondale failed to show federal direction/control over safety practices (causal nexus not met) |
| Whether Avondale acted "pursuant to" federal officer directions with causal nexus to plaintiff's injuries | Latiolais: Navy did not regulate or enforce shipyard safety; Avondale controlled safety, so no nexus | Avondale: Navy required asbestos use and involvement with the ship supports removal under the broadened "relating to" language | Held: The court followed Fifth Circuit precedent (Legendre, Bartel) finding lack of government control over safety; causal nexus insufficient |
| Whether the 2011 amendment to §1442 ("or relating to") relaxes causal nexus for negligence claims | Latiolais: Amendment does not eliminate need for causal nexus; negligence/failure-to-warn claims usually do not qualify | Avondale: Amendment broadens scope and permits some attenuation of nexus to federal direction | Held: Amendment allows some attenuation, but under facts here (negligence tied to internal safety), attenuation insufficient to confer removal jurisdiction |
| Need to reach whether Avondale has a colorable federal defense | Latiolais: not addressed because threshold nexus lacking | Avondale: asserted federal defenses if removal sustained | Held: Court did not reach colorable-defense prong because Avondale failed the causal-nexus prong |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., 551 U.S. 142 (Sup. Ct.) (Federal-officer removal applies to private parties assisting federal officers)
- Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co., 149 F.3d 387 (5th Cir.) (articulated three-part test for federal-officer removal)
- Zeringue v. Crane Co., 846 F.3d 785 (5th Cir.) (2011 amendment broadened §1442 by adding "or relating to," permitting some attenuation of causal-nexus requirement)
- Bartel v. Alcoa Steamship Co., 805 F.3d 169 (5th Cir.) (failure-to-warn/negligence claims did not present sufficient causal nexus for removal)
- Legendre v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 885 F.3d 398 (5th Cir.) (remand affirmed where government required use of asbestos but did not control defendants' safety practices)
- Savoie v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 817 F.3d 457 (5th Cir.) (recognizes private entities as "persons" under §1442 when assisting federal officers)
- Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Casualty Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720 (5th Cir.) (removal statutes construed narrowly in favor of remand)