Stephen Legendre v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc
885 F.3d 398
5th Cir.2018Background
- Mary Jane Wilde died of mesothelioma in 2016; plaintiffs (her brothers) allege secondary exposure from their father Percy Legendre, an Avondale employee who worked with asbestos on Navy tugs in the 1940s.
- Plaintiffs sued Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (formerly Avondale) in Louisiana state court for negligence (failure to warn and implement safety procedures); Avondale removed under the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442.
- Avondale asserted it acted under federal direction because the Navy required asbestos in ship construction and inspected performance to government specifications.
- The district court remanded, finding Avondale failed to satisfy the § 1442 "causal nexus" requirement; Avondale appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit panel affirmed, concluding precedent requires a showing that federal direction caused the challenged conduct (i.e., that the contractor was not free to adopt the safety measures plaintiffs say would have prevented the injury).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1442 permits removal for plaintiff's negligence claims | Legendres: federal direction to use asbestos doesn’t make Avondale’s negligence federal; state court is proper forum | Avondale: Navy requirements and oversight tie its conduct to federal authority, supporting removal | Remand affirmed — no causal nexus shown between Navy directives and alleged negligent safety practices |
| Whether Avondale was "free to adopt" safety procedures | Legendres: evidence shows Navy did not control shipyard safety; Avondale alone responsible for safety | Avondale: Navy required asbestos and oversaw construction to specs, implying federal control | Held for Legendres — record shows Avondale retained discretion over safety measures |
| Effect of the 2011 amendment adding "relating to" to § 1442 | Legendres: Fifth Circuit precedent still requires a causal connection under current law | Avondale: 2011 amendment broadens § 1442 and undermines pre-2011 causal nexus test | Court: bound by Fifth Circuit precedent (Bartel); causal nexus requirement remains and was not met |
| Whether Avondale established a colorable federal defense (e.g., government-contractor defense) | Legendres: Avondale did not show government exercised discretion over warnings/safety | Avondale: invoked federal-contractor defenses and federal interest in ship construction | Court: did not reach full merits of colorable-defense because causal nexus failure disposed of removal; district court previously found colorable-defense insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Bartel v. Alcoa S.S. Co., 805 F.3d 169 (5th Cir. 2015) (prevents § 1442 removal where contractor was free to adopt safety measures and government did not dictate safety practices)
- Savoie v. Huntington Ingalls, 817 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 2016) (applies Bartel to negligence claims from shipyard asbestos exposure; negligence claims lack causal nexus to Navy directives)
- Zeringue v. Crane Co., 846 F.3d 785 (5th Cir. 2017) (interprets 2011 amendment broadly; permits removal where the defendant's relationship to Navy directives directly related to the complained-of conduct)
- Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988) (establishes the government-contractor (Boyle) defense and its three-part test for preemption of state-law liability)
- Jefferson Cty. v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423 (1999) (recognizes that qualifying for § 1442 removal requires showing a nexus between charged conduct and official authority)