Burns v. All Acquisitions, LLC (2014)

Our plain-English summary of Burns v. All Acquisitions, LLC (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, August 22, 2014).

Michael Burns sued All Acquisitions, LLC and other companies in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois. He alleged he developed mesothelioma, diagnosed in November 2013, from asbestos in products he encountered as a construction worker. United Technologies Corporation, sued as Pratt & Whitney, removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute. It said the only reasonable source of exposure from its aircraft engines was Burns's Navy service. It later tried to withdraw the removal notice, and Boeing sought to join it. The court denied the withdrawal and allowed Boeing to join. Boeing and Crane Co. were then dismissed by stipulation. Burns moved to remand, noting his complaint asserted only state-law claims. The magistrate judge found no other basis for federal jurisdiction, such as diversity. Applying the factors for relinquishing jurisdiction, the court found that limitations was not a concern, little federal effort had been spent, and the outcome was not obvious. It granted the motion and remanded the case to state court.

We wrote this summary from the court's opinion with the help of AI. It is not the court's wording, and it is not legal advice. The full opinion is below.

The decision

• Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois
• Decided: August 22, 2014
• Docket: Case No. 3:14-cv-232-DGW-SCW
• Stage: Jurisdiction, venue or removal
• State: Illinois

Outcome. The court granted plaintiff Michael Burns's motion to remand and sent the case back to the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, after the federal-officer basis for removal by United Technologies no longer supported keeping it.

What the court held. Where the only basis for federal jurisdiction was federal officer removal and the federal grounds have dropped out, the court normally relinquishes jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, considering limitations, federal resources spent, and whether the outcome is obvious.

Issues decided: Government Contractor Defense and Removal, Venue, Removal and Transfer.

The people and their exposure

• Michael Burns: mesothelioma

The defendants

• United Technologies Corporation (sued as Pratt & Whitney Company) (manufacturer)
• The Boeing Company (manufacturer)
• Crane Co. (manufacturer)
• All Acquisitions, LLC

Decisions this opinion cites

Earlier decisions in our library that the court cited:

• Ruppel v. CBS Corporation (U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 2012). The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's remand order and remanded, holding CBS (Westinghouse's successor) properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute because it had a colorable government contractor defense; Ruppel lost on remand.

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

MICHAEL BURNS, Plaintiff,

v.

ALL ACQUISITIONS, LLC., etal., Defendants.

Case No. 3:14-cv-232-DGW-SCW.

August 22, 2014.

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois.

ORDER

DONALD G. WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge.

Now pending before the Court is the Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiff, Michael Burns, on March 19, 2014 (Doc. 224). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

On February 19, 2014, Defendant United Technologies Corporation ("UTC," who is sued as Pratt & Whitney Company) removed this matter from the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois pursuant to the Federal Officer Removal Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos, during his job as a construction worker, that was contained in products manufactured, sold, distributed, or installed by Defendants (Complaint, Doc. 2-2, pp. 7-8). Plaintiff became aware, on November 4, 2013, that he developed Mesothelioma, a fatal disease linked to asbestos containing products (Id. at 13). The Complaint sets forth 10 counts, based on state law, against various Defendants. The Complaint also affirmatively states that "The Federal Courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over this action. . . . Removal is improper." (Id. at 14). However, in the Notice of Removal, UTC states that, based on Plaintiff's responses to discovery, "the only reasonable source of asbestos exposure from UTC aircraft engines is during plaintiff's service in the U.S. Navy" (Doc. 2).

On February 21, 2014, UTC filed a Motion to Withdraw the Notice of Removal (Doc. 7). However, on March 5, 2014, Defendant, The Boeing Company, sought to join in the Notice (Doc. 134). On June 13, 2014, a hearing was held on the two Motions, in addition to the Motion to Remand that Plaintiff had filed on March 19, 2014 (Doc. 224) to which Boeing filed a response (Doc. 401). In a June 20, 2014 Order, this Court denied the Motion to Withdraw and granted the Motion to Join (Doc. 753). This Court also took Plaintiff's Motion to Remand under advisement and indicated that any Defendant seeking to respond to the Motion should do so by June 23, 2014 and that Plaintiff may file a reply by June 27, 2014. No other response has been filed and Plaintiff has not filed a reply brief.[1]

On July 2, 2014, The Boeing Company was dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a stipulation (Doc. 809). DISCUSSION

Title 28 U.S.C. §1447(c) provides that "[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lack subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." Subject matter jurisdiction in this case was based solely on the potential applicability of 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) which provides that cases brought against a "federal officer and their agents for actions done under the immediate direction of the national government," may be removed to federal court. Ruppel v. CBS Corp., 701 F.3d 1176, 1179-1180 (7th Cir. 2012) (citations and quotation marks removed); 28 U.S.C. § 1442. No party has established any other basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff only is alleging state law claims and there does not appear to be diversity of citizenship.

"The well established general rule is that jurisdiction is determined at the time of removal and nothing filed after removal affects jurisdiction." In re Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co., 606 F.3d 379, 380 (7th Cir. 2010). Thus, "federal jurisdiction

is not defeated by dropping federal claims after the case has been properly removed to federal court." Sullivan v. Conway, 157 F.3d 1092, 1095 (7th Cir. 1998). However, "if all the federal claims drop out before trial, even as a consequence of the plaintiff's own voluntary dismissal, the district judge normally will relinquish jurisdiction over the state-law claims." Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In determining whether to relinquish jurisdiction, the Court considers whether there is a statute of limitations that would bar refiling in state court, whether substantial federal resources have been expended, and "where it is obvious how the claims should be decided." Williams Electronics Games, Inc. v. Garrity, 479 F.3d 904 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing Wright v. Associated Ins. Cos., 29 F.3d 1244, 1251-52 (7th Cir. 1994)). None of these factors would result in the continued exercise of jurisdiction in this matter. The statute of limitations is irrelevant as this matter is not being dismissed; substantial federal resources have not been expended; and, it is not obvious how this matter should be resolved. Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiff, Michael Burns, on March 19, 2014 (Doc. 224) is GRANTED. This matter is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

[1] At a hearing held on June 13, 2014, Defendant, Crane Co., indicated that it may file a motion to join the Notice of Removal. No such motion has been filed and Crane Co. was dismissed, by stipulation, on July 2, 2014 (Doc. 809).

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• Illinois asbestos laws
• Illinois asbestos exposure sites