Jackson v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (E.D. La., May 11, 2020)

Our plain-English summary of Jackson v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, May 11, 2020).

Patricia Jackson sued Avondale Industries (now Huntington Ingalls), Albert L. Bossier, Jr., Lamorak Insurance Company and other defendants in Orleans Parish state court. She was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, which she said came from asbestos exposure while she worked at Avondale Shipyard and from fibers on her father's work clothing while he worked at Avondale. The Avondale defendants removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, saying the claims arose from building ships for the Navy and the Maritime Administration at federal direction. Jackson then settled her claims against those defendants and moved to remand. They did not oppose and moved to withdraw their notice of removal. The court granted both motions and sent the case back to state court. It reasoned that no other defendant had removed or claimed federal officer jurisdiction, and diversity jurisdiction was lacking. It did not decide whether the removal was valid or timely.

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, Eastern District of Louisiana
• Decided: May 11, 2020
• Docket: Civil Action No. 20-1005
• Stage: Jurisdiction, venue or removal
• State: Louisiana

Outcome. The court granted Patricia Jackson's motion to remand and the Avondale Defendants' motion to withdraw their notice of removal, sending the case back to Orleans Parish Civil District Court because she had settled with the removing defendants.

What the court held. Remand was warranted because the plaintiff had settled with the removing defendants and no claimed basis for removal jurisdiction existed as to the remaining defendants, so the court did not reach the validity or merits of the federal officer removal.

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

The people and their exposure

• Patricia Jackson: mesothelioma

The defendants

• Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (f/k/a Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc., f/k/a Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc., and f/k/a Avondale Industries, Inc.) (employer)
• Albert L. Bossier, Jr.
• Lamorak Insurance Company (insurer)

Other decisions in this case

Other rulings from the same court in the same case, in our library:

• Jackson v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (June 29, 2020). The district court granted Hopeman Brothers' motion for reconsideration, vacated its earlier order remanding the case to state court, and denied plaintiff Patricia Jackson's motion to strike Hopeman's exhibits, finding federal officer removal jurisdiction.
• Jackson v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (August 2, 2021). The court found genuine disputes of fact on exposure and causation, so Hopeman Brothers and Liberty Mutual (as insurer of Wayne Manufacturing) did not obtain summary judgment against plaintiff Patricia Jackson's estate representative; the issues go to the trier of fact.

Decisions this opinion cites

Earlier decisions in our library that the court cited:

• Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, Incorporated (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2020). The en banc Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's order remanding the case to state court and remanded for further proceedings in federal court, ruling for Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) and against Latiolais on 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.

PATRICIA JACKSON,

v.

AVONDALE INDUSTRIES INC. ET AL, SECTION "L" (5).

Civil Action No. 20-1005.

May 11, 2020.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

ORDER & REASONS

ELDON E. FALLON, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, R. Doc. 7. Defendants have not filed an opposition and have filed a Motion to Withdraw the Notice of Removal. R. Doc. 8. Having considered the parties' arguments and the applicable law, the Court now rules as follows.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises out of Plaintiff Patricia Jackson's diagnosis with malignant mesothelioma, which she contends was caused by exposure to asbestos products while employed by Avondale Shipyard. R. Doc. 7-1 at 4. Plaintiff also contends she was exposed to asbestos fibers located on her father's work clothing while he was employed by Avondale. R. Doc. 7-1 at 4. The case was removed to federal court on March 25, 2020 by Defendants Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (f/k/a Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc., f/k/a Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc., and f/k/a Avondale Industries, Inc.), Albert L. Bossier, Jr., and Lamorak Insurance Company (collectively, "the Avondale Defendants"), following the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's decision in Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., which held that removal under section 1442(a) is appropriate when a defendant shows "(1) it has asserted a colorable federal defense, (2) it is a "person" within the meaning of the statute, (3) that has acted pursuant to a federal officer's directions, and (4) the charged conduct is connected or associated with an act pursuant to a federal officer's directions." 951 F.3d 286, 296 (5th Cir. 2020). Essentially, the Avondale Defendants premise removal on the allegation that Plaintiff's claims stem from actions taken by Avondale at the direction of a federal officer—namely, the construction of ships for the United States Navy and the United States Maritime Administration. R. Doc. 1 at 5.

II. PENDING MOTION

Plaintiff timely filed a motion to remand the case. R. Doc. 7. As a threshold matter, Plaintiff explains that remand is necessary because "she has since resolved her claims against Avondale Interests." R. Doc. 7-1. Because no other defendant removed the case, joined in the removal, or claims to fall within the ambit of federal officer jurisdiction, and because diversity jurisdiction is lacking, Plaintiff asserts "this case has now undeniably been withdrawn from the ambit of the federal officer removal statute." R. Doc. 7-1 at 2. Plaintiff also challenges the timeliness of the removal and the merits of the argument regarding subject matter jurisdiction. The Avondale Defendants do not oppose the motion and filed a Motion to Withdraw the Notice of Removal explaining that Plaintiff had settled her claims with them. R. Doc. 8.

III. LAW & DISCUSSION

"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). This Court "may not exercise that jurisdiction absent a statutory basis." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). Because removal jurisdiction "raises significant federalism concerns," Willy v. Coastal Corp., 855 F.2d 1160, 1164 (5th Cir. 1988), it is strictly construed and doubts regarding removal jurisdiction should be resolved against federal jurisdiction, Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2000).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA OFFICE OF THE CLERK CAROL L. MICHEL

500 POYDRAS ST. ROOM C-151 LERK NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 May 11, 2020 Clerk Civil District Court Parish of Orleans 421 Loyola Ave., Room 402 New Orleans, LA XXXXX-XXXX RE: PATRICIA JACKSON v. AVONDALE

INDUSTRIES INC., etal. Civil Action No. 20-1005 L(5) Your No. 19-08826 G-11

A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court if a federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the issue. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A federal court has original jurisdiction over cases presenting federal questions and those involving complete diversity of citizenship among the parties where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Additionally, 28 U.S.C. § 1442 permits federal officers to "remove a case even if no federal question is raised in the well-pleaded complaint, so long as the officer asserts a federal defense in the response." Latiolais, 951 F.3d at 290. The Court need not reach the procedural validity or the merits of the Avondale Defendants' notice of removal, as it finds that remand is warranted simply because Plaintiff has settled with the removing defendants and because no claimed basis for removal jurisdiction exists with respect to the remaining defendants.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, R. Doc. 7, and Defendant's Motion to Withdraw Notice of Removal, R. Doc. 8, are GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter be REMANDED to Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.

Dear Sir:

I am enclosing herewith a certified copy of an order entered by this court on 5/8/2020 remanding the above-entitled case to your court. Very truly yours,

Sources

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