Mary Wilde v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc.
616 F. App'x 710
5th Cir.2015Background
- Mary Jane Wilde sued Huntington Ingalls (Avondale) in Louisiana state court for asbestos exposure she alleges was transmitted from her father, Percy Legendre, Sr., who worked at the Avondale shipyard in the 1940s.
- Wilde's complaint did not allege her father worked on or around federal vessels or at federal facilities; trial was set for June 2015.
- In April 2015 Wilde’s expert produced specification sheets for two vessels built under U.S. Maritime Commission contracts; Huntington removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (federal-officer removal).
- Wilde moved to remand; the district court remanded on May 21, 2015, finding Huntington had not shown the required causal nexus between federal direction and Wilde’s claims.
- Huntington appealed and moved for a stay of the remand pending appeal; the Fifth Circuit denied the stay and expedited the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Huntington satisfied §1442’s "acting under"/causal-nexus requirement for removal | Wilde argues no evidence links her father to the specific federally contracted vessels or to asbestos from those vessels, so no causal nexus exists | Huntington contends it built Maritime Commission ships under mandatory specs requiring asbestos and was supervised by the government, establishing a causal nexus | Denied: no evidence Legendre worked on/near the specified vessels, so Huntington cannot show the requisite causal nexus for removal |
| Whether Huntington has a colorable federal (government-contractor/Boyle) defense justifying removal | Wilde contends her claims target Avondale’s unsafe handling (state-law negligence/strict liability), not compliance with government specs, and she disclaims liability based solely on possession of asbestos | Huntington asserts Boyle defense: government-approved specifications and conformity insulated it from state-law liability for using asbestos per government direction | Denied: Huntington did not produce the actual regulations/specifications showing reasonably precise government control required by Boyle, so it failed to show a colorable federal defense |
Key Cases Cited
- Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chemical Co., 149 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. 1998) (government specifications and supervision can establish causal nexus for federal-officer removal)
- Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988) (government-contractor defense elements and limit on state-law liability when contractor followed reasonably precise government specifications)
- Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 551 U.S. 142 (2007) (interpretation of "acting under" federal direction construed liberally)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay pending appeal standard and factors)
- Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121 (1989) (removal available for conduct performed under color of federal office)