Sewell v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans
697 F. App'x 288
5th Cir.2017Background
- The Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans (SWB) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) co-sponsored the federally funded Southeast Louisiana (SELA) Drainage Project; plaintiffs own property in Uptown New Orleans and sued SWB for damage from construction.
- SWB filed third-party claims against three contractors (B&K, Boh Bros., Cajun Constructors), who removed the cases under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).
- Contractors moved for summary judgment asserting government-contractor immunity under Boyle; the district court heard argument, granted SWB 30 additional days for discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), but later granted summary judgment for the contractors.
- The district court found the Corps had approved reasonably precise specifications and meaningfully reviewed plans, satisfying Boyle’s first prong; it concluded the Corps was the primary decisionmaker for critical design features.
- The district court declined supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and remanded those claims to state court; the Fifth Circuit affirmed both the summary judgment and the remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal under §1442 was proper | Implied challenge to federal removal (procedural) | Contractors removed under federal-officer statute | Removal not reversed on appeal (procedural posture preserved) |
| Whether district court abused discretion on discovery / Rule 56(d) | SWB: discovery time too brief; summary judgment premature without more discovery | Contractors: SWB had ample time and produced minimal timely discovery | No abuse of discretion; court reasonably managed schedule and granted extra 30 days; summary judgment not premature |
| Whether Boyle first prong (government-approved reasonably precise specifications) satisfied | SWB: specs lacked detail for certain materials; Corps may have delegated review to SWB | Contractors: Corps prepared, reviewed, and approved extensive, specific plans and specs, exercising control over critical design choices | First Boyle prong met: Corps approved reasonably precise specifications and was the primary decisionmaker on critical features; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether remand of pendent state-law claims was proper | SWB: (implicit) preferred federal adjudication? | District court: discretionary to remand once federal claims gone | Remand was within district court’s discretion; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyle v. United Techs. Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988) (establishes government-contractor immunity three-prong test)
- Kerstetter v. Pac. Sci. Co., 210 F.3d 431 (5th Cir. 2000) (applying Boyle test)
- In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 620 F.3d 455 (5th Cir. 2010) (discusses government approval and precision of specifications)
- Trevino v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 865 F.2d 1474 (5th Cir. 1989) (government must exercise discretion over critical design choices)
- Fed. Ins. Co. v. Singing River Health Sys., 850 F.3d 187 (5th Cir. 2017) (abuse-of-discretion standard for discovery rulings)
- Crosby v. La. Health Serv. & Indem. Co., 647 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing discovery-related decisions)
- Jones v. Roadway Express, Inc., 936 F.2d 789 (5th Cir. 1991) (district court discretion to remand pendent state-law claims)