Venue, Removal and Transfer in Asbestos Cases

Decisions in our library in which the court ruled on venue: 496 cases, by state. Each line gives what the court held, in our words; the law differs from state to state and changes, so read the opinion and talk to a lawyer before relying on any of them.

About this issue

Even when a court has power over the parties, other rules decide where a case is heard:

• Venue rules pick the proper county or district. Under forum non conveniens, a court may dismiss a case when an available, adequate forum elsewhere is much more appropriate after weighing the parties' and the public's interests; transfers between federal courts are governed by separate rules.
• Removal lets defendants move a case from state to federal court in some situations. Diversity removal requires complete diversity of citizenship between plaintiffs and defendants and more than $75,000 in controversy, and generally is not allowed if a properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the state where the suit was filed. A federal defense alone does not allow removal, except in qualifying federal officer cases.
• Remand: plaintiffs often ask the federal court to send a case back, for example by showing that a defendant from their own state was properly joined. Defendants generally must remove within 30 days, and a request to remand for a defect in how the case was removed must also be made within 30 days; a lack of federal jurisdiction can be raised later.
• Transfer moves cases between federal courts. For decades the federal asbestos multidistrict litigation (MDL 875) in Philadelphia handled pretrial matters in federal asbestos cases.

Many asbestos decisions are short rulings on these motions, because where a case is tried can matter as much as how.

Alabama

• Craig v. AW Chesterton Co. (2023). The 30-day removal period under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) did not begin until a paper unambiguously tied the defendants' products to a Navy vessel, and federal-officer removal is construed liberally. Earlier papers that listed Navy ships and the defendants' products separately did not start the clock.
• Corley v. Long-Lewis, Inc. (2020). An order granting a plaintiff's Rule 41(a)(2) motion to voluntarily dismiss the rest of a complaint is a final judgment for appeal, and a court may refuse to consider a new choice-of-law (maritime law) argument first raised in a motion for reconsideration after summary judgment.
• Kite v. Bill Vann Company, Inc. (2011). A plaintiff's disclaimer of claims arising on a 'federal enclave' or under color of federal office is circular and ineffective to bar federal officer removal. Removal is proper if one claim qualifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a), where the defendant shows it acted under direct federal control and has a colorable government contractor defense.
• Corley v. Long-Lewis, Inc. (2010). A defendant may remove under federal enclave jurisdiction when part of an asbestos plaintiff's alleged ongoing exposure occurred on a federal enclave, such as a naval shipyard, and a disclaimer of federal claims does not defeat that. A contractor may remove under the federal officer statute by showing a colorable government contractor defense and a causal connection to its work for the Navy.

Arizona

• Hatten v. Grobet USA (2020). A removing defendant claiming fraudulent joinder must show there is no possibility a state court would find the complaint states a cause of action against the non-diverse defendant, and a removing defendant asserting federal enclave jurisdiction bears the burden of showing the events occurred on land under exclusive federal jurisdiction.
• Leabo v. Allied Signal, Inc. (2011). Under Arizona law, which a federal court must apply to a state judgment, a state court's dismissal with prejudice of a second, identical action as time-barred is a judgment on the merits that bars the first-filed action by claim preclusion, even though the first action was begun earlier.

Arkansas

• Kimmons v. Autozone, Inc. (2020). A talc supplier that knew the manufacturer sold finished products nationwide, including in Arkansas, and that was the manufacturer's exclusive supplier, did not purposefully direct activities at Arkansas, so asserting specific personal jurisdiction over it would violate due process.
• Valentine v. Borg-Warner Corporation (2009). Fraudulent joinder exists only when there is no colorable claim against the non-diverse defendant; an argument that the plaintiff cannot prove the claim, based on deposition testimony, does not show fraudulent joinder.

California

• Holste v. 3M Company (2025). A plaintiff's waiver of government or military-based claims can defeat federal officer removal, and a removing defendant must offer evidence that the government directed the use of asbestos to show a causal nexus and a colorable government contractor defense. A cross-claim by a co-defendant does not support removal.
• Corin v. Arkema, Inc. (2024). A notice of removal based on diversity must allege facts showing each party's citizenship, not conclusions or information and belief. Amendment is futile where the forum defendant rule would bar a new removal and the amendment would not relate back.
• Dunlavey v. 3M Company (2024). A defendant removing under the federal-officer statute must show with competent proof that the claims concern conduct done while acting under a federal officer, and an "other paper" must make removability unequivocally clear and certain from its face; an ambiguous email did not.
• Gemaehlich v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2023). 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.
• Haeck v. 3M Company (2023). Under the Ninth Circuit's voluntary/involuntary rule, a case that was not removable becomes removable only through the plaintiff's voluntary act; a summary judgment for a California defendant granted over the plaintiff's objection does not remove the forum defendant bar.
• Marcus v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2023). A defendant removing under the federal officer removal statute must show by a preponderance of the evidence that it acted under a federal officer's direction and has a colorable government contractor defense; it need not prove the defense is meritorious. Defendants' evidence of Navy specifications, control over warnings and Navy knowledge of asbestos hazards met that standard.
• Ollerton v. National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (2023). A military contractor may assert the Boyle/Yearsley government contractor defense, and so remove under the federal officer statute, when the claim arises from negligence in performing a services contract rather than supplying a product. The defendant must show the defense is colorable and that a causal nexus exists to acts taken at federal direction.
• Dietrich v. Boeing Company (2021). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3), the 30-day removal clock starts only when an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper makes a ground for removal "unequivocally clear and certain." Oral deposition testimony is not an "other paper."
• Toy v. Armstrong Int'l (In re Asbestos) (2021). An expert need not be formally credentialed in a specific field to be qualified under Rule 702, and criticism of animal-based research goes to weight, not admissibility. The court denied the motion to exclude "every exposure" testimony because plaintiffs' experts did not appear to rely on that theory, but said it would exclude such testimony if offered at trial.
• Rathbun v. Barretts Minerals, Inc. (2021). A removing defendant must show that the plaintiff cannot possibly state a claim against the non-diverse defendant, including through amendment; if a claim is possible, joinder is not fraudulent and the case must be remanded for lack of complete diversity.
• Sweikhart v. Akebono Brake Industry Co. (2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2021). Under California law, a foreign corporation may be served through its "general manager in this state," which includes its wholly-owned domestic subsidiary's agent for service, so Hague Convention procedures need not be followed.
• Anderson v. Johnson & Johnson (2020). The court approved the parties' stipulation dismissing the wrongful death action against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. without prejudice, with the limitations period tolled until after the state appeal ends.
• Kruse v. Actuant Corporation (2020). A defendant removing under the federal officer removal statute need only show a person under the statute, a colorable federal defense (here the Boyle government contractor defense to design defect claims) and a low-threshold causal nexus between its acts under federal direction and the plaintiff's claims.
• Pizarro v. Astra Flooring Company (2020). A defendant may remove an entire action under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) if it shows by a preponderance of the evidence a colorable government contractor defense to a failure-to-warn claim, and declarations from a retired Navy admiral can suffice at the removal stage under Leite v. Crane Co.
• Carrera v. Johnson & Johnson (2019). A removed talc injury suit is not 'related to' a supplier's bankruptcy under the Pacor test where indemnity and shared-insurance provisions would require a further action to establish liability. Even if jurisdiction existed, 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) permits remand on any equitable ground.
• Harris v. CBS Corporation (2019). The 30-day removal period under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) starts when the cumulative papers and emails would let a defendant, using reasonable intelligence, ascertain that the case is removable. The court declined to require a 'clear and unequivocal' statement.
• Rickert v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2019). A California court deciding a forum non conveniens motion to stay a case brought by a nonresident weighs private and public interest factors, and the "seriously inconvenient" standard does not apply to a stay; the ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
• Strobel v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (2019). A removing defendant cannot establish bankruptcy 'related to' jurisdiction from a non-party debtor's disputed indemnification or shared-insurance claims. Even if jurisdiction existed, equitable remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) was warranted.
• Viale v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2019). Federal courts have federal question jurisdiction over tort claims arising on federal enclaves, and Mare Island Naval Shipyard was a federal enclave at the time of the alleged exposure, so claims based on work there stay in federal court even after the Navy-service claims were dropped.
• Viale v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2019). A proposed amended complaint is deemed filed on the date the motion for leave is filed, so the amendment was timely. The defendant's arguments about its federal forum went to the effect of the amendment on jurisdiction, not to whether the pleading could be filed.
• Viale v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2019). A defendant sued under state law over asbestos warnings can remove under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) by showing it is a covered person, that a causal nexus exists between the claims and acts done at a federal officer's direction, and that it has a colorable federal defense such as the government contractor defense.
• Weirick v. Brenntag North America, Inc. (2019). A district court may remand a removed action "on any equitable ground" under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b), even if "related to" bankruptcy jurisdiction exists. Factors such as state-law predominance, comity, forum shopping, jury-trial rights and prejudice favored remand of this substantially litigated state case.
• Livernois v. National Ship and Shipbuilding Company (2018). Under Rule 41(a)(2), a court may allow voluntary dismissal without prejudice when the defendant identifies no cognizable prejudice, even if the plaintiff's motive involves forum shopping.
• Sanchez v. Air & Liquid Systems, Corporation (2018). To remove under the federal officer statute, a defendant must show a colorable federal defense; a government-contractor defense is not colorable where the contractor offers no evidence that it warned the government of dangers it knew of that the government did not.
• Thrash v. Cirrus Enterprises, LLC (2017). A defendant removing under the federal officer removal statute must show it acted under a federal officer's direction with a causal nexus to the claims and has a colorable federal defense; it need not prove the government contractor defense is meritorious, and evidence of detailed military specifications and government control of warnings suffices.
• Zanowick v. Baxter Healthcare Corporation (2017). Rule 25(a)(1)'s 90-day substitution deadline does not require dismissal with prejudice; a district court has discretion to allow late substitution or to dismiss without prejudice, and may grant a Rule 41(a)(2) voluntary dismissal without prejudice.
• Ballard v. Ameron International Corporation (2016). A removing defendant bears the burden of showing jurisdiction. Conclusory claims of federal enclave status do not suffice, and enclave jurisdiction is concurrent so all defendants must join in removal. Federal officer removal requires a showing of federal direction, a federal defense and a causal nexus.
• Lopez v. Allied Packing & Supply Inc. (2016). Under California law an action is commenced when the original complaint is filed, and amending it (including to add wrongful death claims and new plaintiffs after the original plaintiff's death) does not restart the one-year limit on diversity removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1).
• Unterleitner v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2016). A case not initially removable because of a non-diverse defendant becomes removable only through the plaintiff's voluntary act, so a dismissal ordered over the plaintiff's opposition, or one not formally entered, does not create diversity. Removal also requires all defendants to join or an exception to be shown, and fees are proper when removal lacked an objectively reasonable basis.
• Fenicle v. Boise Cascade Company (2015). A state-law asbestos wrongful death claim does not raise a substantial federal question under Grable merely because a repealed federal statute might bear on a veil-piercing theory. The rule of unanimity does not apply to removal under § 1452, but a bankruptcy-related case may be remanded on broad equitable grounds.
• Hendricks v. Armstrong International, Inc. (2015). A resident defendant is fraudulently joined only if it is obvious under settled state law that the plaintiff cannot state a claim against it, and doubts about removal are resolved in favor of remand; all properly joined, non-nominal defendants must join in removal.
• Uribes v. BASF Catalysts, LLC (2015). A removing defendant must show by clear and convincing evidence that there is no possibility the plaintiff could prevail against the non-diverse defendant; a discovery response that appeared to disclaim damages did not establish abandonment of the claims where the operative complaint stated viable claims.
• Lara v. CBS Corp. (2013). A plaintiff's post-removal waiver of all claims arising from exposure at federal government sites and on Navy vessels defeats a government-contractor defense for federal officer removal, and a defendant's possible need to allocate fault to co-defendants under Proposition 51 does not support removal.
• Nelson v. Air and Liquid Systems Corp. (2013). Under California law, a plaintiff must present evidence of exposure to asbestos from the specific defendant's product; evidence supporting only conjecture that the decedent was near or used a defendant's asbestos-containing product is insufficient to survive summary judgment.
• Willis v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc. (2013). A defendant is entitled to federal officer removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) where it identifies facts, viewed in the light most favorable to it, that entitle it to a complete defense; a government contractor need only show a colorable defense based on government discretion over warnings, not that the government dictated exact warnings.
• Brantley v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec, Inc. (2012). A defendant may remove under the federal officer removal statute if it is a person, acted under a federal officer's direction, has a causal nexus to the claims, and raises a colorable federal defense. A plaintiff's disclaimer of claims arising from acts at a federal officer's direction does not defeat removal.
• Couscouris v. Hatch Grinding Wheels, Inc. (2012). A removing defendant must show there is no possibility the plaintiff can prevail against the non-diverse defendant; where the claim is facially sufficient and discovery against that defendant is ongoing, the possibility of obtaining supporting evidence defeats a fraudulent joinder claim.
• Harris v. CBS Corporation (2012). A defendant seeking transfer under § 1404(a) must show the convenience factors favor it, and the Plaintiffs' choice of forum receives substantial deference. Field and conflict preemption could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss because of disputed facts about Navy control, the combatant activities defense did not reach peaceful training in Idaho, and an ordinary tort suit between private parties did not raise a nonjusticiable political question.
• Reaser v. AW Chesterton Company (2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 2010). In a large multi-defendant asbestos case, a moving defendant need not show that every defendant is subject to jurisdiction in the alternative forum, but where that is uncertain the action should be stayed rather than dismissed so the plaintiff can return to California if the other forum proves unavailable.
• Campbell v. American Standard, Inc. (2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2009). A trial court may not dismiss an action for delay in prosecution under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410 before the action has been pending two years. A dismissal that rests on that ground cannot be affirmed on a forum non conveniens theory the trial court did not apply.
• Wangen v. Gardner Denver, Inc. (2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2009). In a large multi-defendant asbestos case, a defendant seeking a forum non conveniens stay need not show that every defendant is subject to jurisdiction in the alternative forum. The action may be stayed, not dismissed, pending a determination of that forum's jurisdiction over all defendants.
• Ballenger v. Agco Corporation (2007). A defendant may remove under the federal officer removal statute, construed broadly in favor of removal, if it acted under a federal officer's direct and detailed control, has a colorable federal defense, and shows a causal nexus between the claims and acts done under federal direction. A retired admiral's declaration can satisfy the control showing without decades-old contracts.