Gemaehlich v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2023)

Our plain-English summary of Gemaehlich v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, April 5, 2023).

Betty and Keith Gemaehlich sued several companies in Alameda Superior Court. They alleged that Mr. Gemaehlich's mesothelioma was caused at least in part by his work with and around asbestos-containing products during Navy service from 1960 to 1964. John Crane Inc. removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute. It argued that any asbestos packing it supplied to the Navy was made under government contracts and specifications. The Gemaehlichs did not argue the merits and instead dismissed John Crane by stipulation. Crosby Valve then opposed remand, making a similar argument about its valves, and the Gemaehlichs dismissed it too. The plaintiffs then asked the federal court to send the case back to state court. The court granted the motion. Only state-law tort claims remained. No other defendant had asserted a federal officer defense or joined the removal. The case was at an early stage, with little court time committed. The court therefore used its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to decline supplemental jurisdiction.

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, Northern District of California
• Decided: April 5, 2023
• Docket: Case No. 22-cv-07518-CRB
• Stage: Jurisdiction, venue or removal
• State: California

Outcome. The court granted the Gemaehlichs' motion to remand the case to Alameda Superior Court after the two defendants that asserted federal officer removal (John Crane and Crosby Valve) were dismissed, declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

What the court held. When the only defendants asserting federal officer removal jurisdiction have been dismissed, a district court may exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and remand, especially where little judicial resources have been committed.

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

The people and their exposure

• Keith Gemaehlich: mesothelioma

The defendants

• John Crane Inc. (supplier)
• Crosby Valve (supplier)
• Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (manufacturer)

Decisions this opinion cites

Earlier decisions in our library that the court cited:

• Leite v. Crane Co. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2014). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district courts' denial of the plaintiffs' motions to remand, holding Crane Co. had shown by a preponderance of the evidence a colorable government contractor defense and a causal nexus supporting federal officer removal.

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.

KEITH GEMAEHLICH, etal., Plaintiffs,

v.

AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, etal., Defendants.

Case No. 22-cv-07518-CRB.

April 5, 2023.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND

CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Betty and Keith Gemaehlich (together, the "Gemaehlichs") bring this motion to remand their case back to Alameda Superior Court. See Mot. (dkt. 56). The Gemaehlichs' complaint alleges that Keith Gemaehlich's mesothelioma was caused, at least in part, by his work with and around products containing asbestos manufactured and supplied by various defendants, during his service in the U.S. Navy between 1960 and 1964. See Compl. (dkt. 1-1). Defendant John Crane Inc. ("JCI") removed the case to federal court, arguing that removal was proper under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), because "to the extent JCI supplied asbestos-containing basket and packing material" to the Navy, it did so "pursuant to military procurement contracts with the United States Government and in compliance with detailed design, testing, and labeling specifications issued and approved by the Government." Notice of Removal (dkt. 1) at 9. Instead of arguing against removal on the merits, the Gemaehlichs stipulated to dismiss JCI from this action, which the Court granted. See dkts. 49, 61. Defendant Crosby Valve then opposed the Gemaehlichs' motion to remand, similarly arguing that the valves it supplied to the Navy at that time strictly conformed to the Navy's specifications. See Opp'n (dkt. 74). The Gemaehlichs then stipulated to dismiss Crosby Valve, which the Court also granted. See dkts. 77, 106.[1] The Gemaehlichs therefore contend that, because the two defendants who asserted removal jurisdiction have been dismissed,[2] the Court should, in its discretion, decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims in this action and remand the case back to Alameda Superior Court. The Court agrees, and finding this case suitable for resolution without oral argument under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), VACATES the hearing scheduled on April 21, 2023, and GRANTS the Gemaehlichs' motion to remand.

"It is the general rule that an action may be removed from state court to federal court only if a federal district court would have original jurisdiction over the claim in suit." Jefferson County v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423, 430 (1999) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). Under this default rule, a federal defense does not generally qualify a case for removal. Id. at 430-31. This case, removed pursuant to the federal officer removal statute, constitutes an exception to that "well-pleaded complaint" rule. See 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a). Under Section 1442(a)(1), an action may be removed by "any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office. . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). "A party seeking removal under § 1442 must demonstrate that (a) it is a `person' within the meaning of the statute; (b) there is a causal nexus between its actions, taken pursuant to a federal officer's directions, and plaintiff's claims; and (3) it can assert a `colorable federal defense.'" Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Acker, 527 U.S. at 431).

Courts have recognized, however, that when the party asserting removal jurisdiction is dismissed from the action, while the court retains jurisdiction over the pendent state-law claims remaining in the action, it may exercise its discretion to remand the case back to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Watkins v. Grover, 508 F.2d 920, 921 (9th Cir. 1974) (reversing and remanding a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the federal defendants were dismissed, but instructing the district court on remand to "decide whether to hear the suit on its merits or, in its discretion, to remand the suit to the state court from which it was removed"). Particularly where "there has been no substantial commitment of judicial resources to the nonfederal claims it is. . . akin to making the tail wag the dog for the District Court to retain jurisdiction." Murphy v. Kodz, 351 F.2d 163, 167-68 (9th Cir. 1965) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Mellis v. Asbestos Corp.

Ltd., 13-cv-3449, 2013 WL 4805746, at [*2] (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2013) (exercising its discretion to remand a similar case " [g]iven the early stage of this litigation").

The Court exercises its discretion to remand this case back to Alameda Superior Court. The Gemaehlichs bring only state-law tort claims, which clearly "substantially predominate" in this action. See Compl.; 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). The only two defendants to assert removal jurisdiction have been dismissed. See dkts. 61, 106. Though many other defendants have appeared in this case and might assert a federal officer defense, none consented to JCI's removal, joined Crosby Valve's (now withdrawn) opposition to remand, or filed their own oppositions to the Gemaehlichs' motion to remand. Because the party asserting removal jurisdiction bears "the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the colorable federal defense and causal nexus requirements have been met," see Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2014), and none of the other defendants have even sought to do so, the Court is not inclined to retain jurisdiction on the off chance that another remaining defendant asserts a federal officer defense at some point in the litigation. Finally, the complaint was only filed in state court in October and removed to this Court at the end of November. Apart from granting the parties' stipulations to dismiss JCI and Crosby Valve, this is the Court's first action in this case. Therefore, "there has been no substantial commitment of judicial resources" to this case, and remand is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Murphy, 351 F.2d at 167-68.

For the foregoing reasons, the Gemaehlichs' motion to remand is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

[1] In that stipulation, Crosby Valve also withdrew its opposition. See dkt. 77.

[2] While other defendants have appeared and answered, no defendant (other than Crosby Valve) has opposed or otherwise responded to the Gemaehlichs' motion to remand, nor did any other defendant consent or join in JCI's initial notice of removal. See Notice of Removal at 13.

Sources

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