Ripley v. J. Henry Holland Corporation, 4:14-cv-00070

Bernard Ripley, a former Navy ship boilermaker, was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in 2014 and sued multiple defendants alleging state-law failure-to-warn claims for asbestos exposure from Navy boilers.
Foster Wheeler removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442, asserting it acted "under" a federal officer and asserting the government-contractor (Boyle) defense; removal relied on affidavits from former Foster Wheeler and Navy personnel.
The district court initially remanded, but the Fourth Circuit held Boyle applies to failure-to-warn claims and remanded for assessment whether Foster Wheeler had presented a colorable federal defense supporting § 1442 removal.
Foster Wheeler supplemented the removal record with multiple exhibits (military specifications, manuals, Navy asbestos materials) and affidavits (Schroppe, Betts); Ripley moved to strike affidavits and to remand again.
The magistrate judge concluded Foster Wheeler satisfied the § 1442 elements (acted under a federal officer; presented a colorable government-contractor defense under Boyle as applied to failure-to-warn; charged conduct related to federal authority) and recommended denying Ripley’s renewed motion to remand and denying striking Schroppe’s affidavit.
The court granted in part and denied in part Foster Wheeler’s motion to supplement: three military specifications/manuals were admitted; seven additional proffered exhibits were unnecessary to decide removal at this stage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Schroppe affidavit is admissible	Schroppe's affidavit violates best-evidence rule and Rule 702; insufficient to support removal	Affidavit is based on personal knowledge of Navy procurement and control; Fourth Circuit has relied on it	Denied motion to strike; affidavit remains in record
Whether Foster Wheeler acted "under" a federal officer for § 1442	Ripley disputes scope of government control alleged	Foster Wheeler acted under Navy contracts with supervision, guidance, control	Found Foster Wheeler acted under a federal officer (following Sawyer)
Whether Foster Wheeler presented a colorable government-contractor (Boyle) defense in a failure-to-warn case	Ripley says government specs/standards show different requirements and that Foster Wheeler failed to warn as required	Foster Wheeler shows government discretion over warnings, conformance to specs, and Navy had at least equal knowledge of asbestos risks	Held Foster Wheeler presented a colorable Boyle defense; removal justified
Whether to allow Foster Wheeler to supplement the removal record with military specs and manuals	Ripley objected to seven of ten proffered documents as unnecessary or prejudicial	Foster Wheeler sought ten documents to support its colorable federal defense	Court admitted three unopposed documents; denied admission of the seven contested exhibits as unnecessary at this stage

Boyle v. United Techs. Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (established government-contractor immunity test)
Sawyer v. Foster Wheeler LLC, 860 F.3d 249 (4th Cir.) (applied Boyle to failure-to-warn and found Foster Wheeler met § 1442 elements)
Ripley v. Foster Wheeler LLC, 841 F.3d 207 (4th Cir.) (held Boyle defense applies to failure-to-warn asbestos claims)
Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., 551 U.S. 142 (discussed broad construction of "acting under" and purpose of § 1442)