Pitre v. Huntington Ingalls Inc
2:17-cv-07029
E.D. La.Dec 6, 2017Background
- Decedent Stewart Pitre worked as a pipefitter at Avondale Shipyard from 1963–1972 and later died of lung cancer alleged to be caused by asbestos exposure. Plaintiffs (his wife and children) sued in Louisiana state court asserting wrongful death and survival claims, including strict liability and failure-to-warn claims against multiple defendants.
- Plaintiffs’ first amended petition included strict liability claims against Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) and Foster Wheeler; plaintiffs later moved to amend to delete strict liability claims against Avondale as inadvertent.
- Avondale and insurer Lamorak removed the case to federal court under the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), asserting they were military contractors acting under U.S. Navy directions and had colorable federal defenses (Boyle federal-contractor immunity, Longshore Act). Removal was filed within 30 days of deposition testimony linking Pitre to work on Navy Destroyer Escorts.
- Magistrate Judge North granted plaintiffs leave to amend to delete strict liability claims against Avondale; Avondale and Lamorak appealed that non-dispositive order to the district judge. Plaintiffs moved to remand after amendment.
- The district court reviewed the magistrate’s order for clear error and the removal jurisdiction de novo. The court denied the appeal of the magistrate order and denied remand, concluding removal was proper as to Avondale and that Foster Wheeler independently preserved and demonstrated § 1442(a)(1) grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether magistrate judge erred in granting leave to amend to remove strict liability claims against Avondale | Amendment was manipulation to defeat federal jurisdiction; leave should be denied as improper/futile | Amendment corrects an inadvertent error and is offered in good faith; magistrate’s decision permissible | Magistrate’s order not clearly erroneous or contrary to law; leave to amend upheld |
| Whether removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) was valid as to Avondale at time of removal | Plaintiffs argue amended complaint eliminates federal question and remand is warranted | Avondale contends removal was timely and valid because it acted under federal officer direction and has colorable federal defenses | Removal valid: Avondale met § 1442 requirements (person, causal nexus, colorable federal defense) and federal jurisdiction properly acquired |
| Whether Foster Wheeler forfeited or lost right to federal forum by not joining removal | Plaintiffs contend Foster Wheeler forfeited right because it did not file separate removal or timely supplement | Foster Wheeler preserved its right by asserting government-contractor defense in its answers; joinder not required for § 1442 removal | Foster Wheeler preserved right (Humphries) and may invoke § 1442(a)(1) despite not filing separate notice |
| Whether Foster Wheeler independently satisfies § 1442(a)(1) for remaining design/strict-liability claims | Plaintiffs maintain deletion of Avondale claims justifies remand of remaining claims | Foster Wheeler shows it built boilers to Navy specifications, has affidavits and specs, and a colorable Boyle defense | Court finds Foster Wheeler meets § 1442 elements (acted under Navy, causal nexus, colorable Boyle defense); remand denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (supreme court established federal-contractor immunity framework)
- Zeringue v. Crane Co., 846 F.3d 785 (5th Cir. — colorable federal-contractor defense for asbestos claims)
- Savoie v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 817 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. — causal nexus and removability for Avondale in asbestos strict-liability claims)
- Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co., 149 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. — three-part test for contractor invocation of § 1442)
- Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402 (supreme court explaining purpose of federal-officer removal to protect federal operations)
- Jefferson County v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423 (supreme court — federal question as defense can support removal under § 1442)
- Humphries v. Elliott Co., 760 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. — co-defendant need not join removal to preserve § 1442 rights)
- IMFC Prof. Servs. of Fla. v. Latin Am. Home Health, Inc., 676 F.2d 152 (5th Cir. — removal of entire case authorized though only one controversy involves federal officer)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (supreme court — district court discretion to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction and consider forum manipulation)