Williams v. Lockheed Martin, 990 F.3d 852

Background

Frank Williams worked at Lockheed Martin’s (formerly Martin Marietta) NASA-owned Michoud Assembly Facility from 1974–1993 and later developed malignant mesothelioma; his children were substituted as plaintiffs after his death.
Williams’ deposition suggested possible asbestos exposure from work on NASA External Fuel Tanks (EFTs); Lockheed Martin removed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1442, asserting federal-officer/government-contractor defenses.
The case was consolidated in MDL No. 875; the MDL court granted summary judgment for Lockheed Martin, holding plaintiffs’ claims barred by the Louisiana Worker’s Compensation Act (LWCA) because plaintiffs produced no competent evidence of asbestos exposure before the LWCA amendment covering mesothelioma (Sept. 1, 1975).
Plaintiffs later disclaimed EFT-related exposure and focused on building exposure at Michoud; they also moved repeatedly to remand; the district court denied remand and later imposed $10,000 in sanctions on plaintiffs’ counsel for improper ex parte contact with a Lockheed Martin employee.
On appeal, the Third Circuit standards (applied by the transferor district court) were followed; the Fifth Circuit panel (after en banc guidance in a related case) granted rehearing and affirmed the district court on jurisdiction, summary judgment, discovery, and sanctions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of review for removal / subject-matter jurisdiction	Removal improper because the complaint did not allege EFT exposure and court may not look beyond the complaint	Court may consider the full state-court record at time of removal; deposition revealed EFT nexus justifying §1442 removal	Court upheld consideration of full record and concluded removal under §1442 was proper
§1442 government-contractor defense (colorable federal defense)	Lockheed must prove EFTs contained asbestos and that it used/warned about it to show defense	A contractor need only allege government-mandated specifications, conformity, and that any supplier-only knowledge of hazards was not withheld from government; the defense need be only colorable at removal	Boyle-based government-contractor defense was colorable; nexus and other §1442 elements met; removal sustained
Summary judgment / LWCA accrual (survival & wrongful death)	Expert testimony and coworker affidavit show Williams was exposed to asbestos during the 16 months before the 1975 LWCA amendment, creating a factual dispute	Plaintiffs produced no competent evidence that Williams inhaled asbestos pre-1975; expert relied on assumptions and sources not in record	Wrongful-death claim barred by LWCA; summary judgment affirmed because plaintiffs failed to show significant pre-1975 exposure for survival claims
Sanctions for ex parte contact (Rule 4.2)	No basis for disqualification; fee award excessive because Rule 4.2 violation alone doesn’t permit attorney-fee shifting absent bad faith	Counsel knowingly contacted a represented Lockheed employee; magistrate found knowing conduct tantamount to bad faith, supporting fee award	Court affirmed $10,000 fee sanction; found Rule 4.2 violation and sufficient bad-faith/knowing conduct to justify attorney-fee sanction

Key Cases Cited

Papp v. Fore–Kast Sales Co., Inc., 842 F.3d 805 (3d Cir. 2016) (governs §1442 removal and use of deposition evidence in removal analysis)
Boyle v. United Tech. Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988) (sets elements of the government-contractor defense)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard and burdens)
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (court’s inherent power to sanction and limits on fee-shifting)
Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 (2007) (removal jurisdiction persists despite later dismissal or amendment of federal claim)
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (1974) (insubstantial federal claim standard)
Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc., 824 So. 2d 1137 (La. 2002) (Louisiana law on accrual for asbestos claims under the LWCA)