Maguire v. A.C. and S., Inc.
1:14-cv-07578
S.D.N.Y.Nov 21, 2014Background
- Maguire and her husband filed suit in New York Supreme Court (Manhattan) in 1998; Crane joined as a defendant in 2001 amendment.
- Thomas Maguire diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer in 2008 and died in 2008; executrix substituted in 2009.
- Plaintiff filed an Initial Fact Sheet in 2009 listing Navy service but it was not served on Crane.
- Crane removed the case to federal court in 2014 based on a federal-contractor defense; Maguire moved to remand.
- Interrogatory responses in 2014 revealed Navy exposure timing (1958–1963), forming the basis for removal and a federal-contractor theory.
- Court denied remand, held subject-matter jurisdiction existed via the federal-officer defense and allowed amendment to exclude claims giving rise to that defense; optionally retain or limit jurisdiction for state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Crane’s removal under 1446(b)(3) | Maguire contends removal untimely due to lack of Navy-exposure facts in initial pleadings. | Crane argues timely removal after August 19, 2014 interrogatories disclosed removability. | Timely removal confirmed; 30-day clock triggered by service of discoverable evidence. |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction via federal officer/contractor defense | Maguire seeks remand by abandoning Navy-exposure claims; destroys federal jurisdiction. | Crane asserts colorable federal-contractor defense supports removal. | Court retains subject-matter jurisdiction; may permit amended complaint removing federal claims and consider supplemental jurisdiction. |
| Remand and supplemental jurisdiction after removal | Abandoning federal claims should yield remand to state court. | Remand not required; federal-question defense intact for certain claims. | Court denies remand but allows Maguire to file an amended complaint excluding claims giving rise to the defense; court to weigh supplemental jurisdiction if federal claims are eliminated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitaker v. American Telecasting, Inc., 261 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2001) (removal period triggered by formal service, not mere receipt of pleadings in file)
- Moltner v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 624 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2010) (removal jurisdiction not triggered by non-service evidence)
- Cutrone v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 749 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2014) (no independent duty to investigate removability; service governs 1446(b))
- Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999) (receipt of relevant pleadings unattended by formal service does not trigger removal period)
- Hazel Bishop, Inc. v. Perfemme, Inc., 314 F.2d 399 (2d Cir. 1963) (subject-matter jurisdiction determined by complaint; later narrowing does not erase jurisdiction)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (factors for exercising supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims are eliminated)
- In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig., 488 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2007) (colorable federal defense supports removal in asbestos cases)