Klick v. Asbestos Corporation Ltd. (2022)

Our plain-English summary of Klick v. Asbestos Corporation Ltd. (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, February 2, 2022).

Paul Klick III and his wife Julie sued Asbestos Corporation Ltd., Boeing, Goodrich and others in state-law tort claims over asbestos. Paul alleged he developed mesothelioma after about fifty years of occupational exposure. The complaint said that while serving in the U.S. Air Force he breathed dust from mechanics under his supervision who maintained, removed and installed asbestos-containing friction and insulation products on B-52G and KC-135A aircraft. Boeing removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, but the court later dismissed Boeing for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiffs then moved to remand, and no one opposed. The court decided it could either keep the remaining state-law claims or send them back, and chose to remand. It reasoned that the complaint raised only state-law claims, discovery had not begun, the court had not ruled on the merits, and remand was not unfair to anyone. Because jurisdiction ended, Goodrich's request to dismiss crossclaims against it was denied as moot.

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, District of New Jersey
• Decided: February 2, 2022
• Docket: Civil Action No. 20-16654 (MAS) (DEA)
• Stage: Jurisdiction, venue or removal
• Unpublished opinion. Many courts limit citing unpublished opinions as precedent.
• State: New Jersey

Outcome. The court granted the unopposed motion by plaintiffs Paul and Julie Klick to remand the case to state court after Boeing, the federal-officer removing defendant, was dismissed, and denied Goodrich's proposed order dismissing crossclaims as moot.

What the court held. When the party that removed under the federal officer statute is dismissed, a federal district court may either keep the remaining state-law claims or remand, weighing judicial economy, convenience and fairness. Here the court chose to remand.

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

The people and their exposure

• Paul Klick III: mesothelioma

The defendants

• The Boeing Company (manufacturer)
• Goodrich Corporation (manufacturer)
• Asbestos Corporation Ltd.

Other decisions in this case

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

• Klick v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. (June 28, 2021). The court granted Boeing's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding no general or specific jurisdiction over Boeing in New Jersey, denied jurisdictional discovery, and declined to transfer the claims, so Boeing won against the Klicks.
• Klick v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. (July 15, 2021). The court denied Abex's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without prejudice and ordered 45 days of limited jurisdictional discovery, followed by supplemental briefing, because the record was inadequate to decide.

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.

PAUL KLICK III et al., Plaintiffs,

v.

ASBESTOS CORPORATION LTD. etal., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-16654 (MAS) (DEA).

February 2, 2022.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MICHAEL A. SHIPP, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Paul Klick III ("Paul") and Julie Klick's (together with Paul, "Plaintiffs") unopposed Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 117.) Also before the Court is a proposed order from Defendant Goodrich Corporation ("Goodrich"), requesting that the Court dismiss certain crossclaims against it (the "Proposed Order"). (ECF No. 119.) The Court has carefully considered the parties' submissions and decides the matter without oral argument under Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the reasons below, the Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion and denies Goodrich's Proposed Order as moot. I. BACKGROUND

The motion and proposed order arise out of a suit for various state-law torts stemming from the manufacture, distribution, and use of asbestos. (See generally Compl., ECF No. 1-1.) Paul alleges that he developed mesothelioma from roughly fifty years of occupational exposure to asbestos. (Am. Compl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 84.) For example, Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that, while serving in the U.S. Air Force, Paul "breathed the airborne dust created from mechanics under his direct supervision maintaining, removing and installing asbestos-containing friction and insulation products on the B-52G and KC-135A." (Id.) This case found its way to federal court when Defendant The Boeing Company ("Boeing") removed based on federal officer jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1.) The Court later dismissed Boeing from the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. (ECF No. 97.) Plaintiffs now seek to remand, arguing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the party asserting federal officer jurisdiction (Boeing) is no longer in the case. Separately, another Defendant, Goodrich, requests that all crossclaims against it be dismissed because the Court previously dismissed Plaintiffs' claims against Goodrich. (ECF No. 119.)

II. DISCUSSION

The Court agrees that this case should be remanded. "Once the federal parties (or ... the claims based upon actions taken pursuant to federal direction) are dismissed from a case which has been removed under § 1442(a)(1), a federal district court has the power either to adjudicate the remaining state claims or to remand to state court." Gulati v. Zuckerman, 723 F. Supp. 353, 358 (E.D. Pa. 1989) (citations omitted); see also Robinson v. U.S. Cold Storage, Inc., No. 01-697, 2002 WL 187511, at [*3] (D. Del. Feb. 5, 2002) ("Where the federal defendants have been dismissed from a case which has been removed under § 1442(a)(1), ... the district court can either exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the case or remand to state court."). In making this determination, the Court should consider "judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants." McAfee v. 20th Century Glove Corp. of Tex., No. 13-6856, 2015 WL 3631832, at [*2] (E.D. Pa. June 10, 2015) (citations omitted). Here, the Court exercises its discretion to remand the case back to state court. Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges exclusively state-law claims and discovery has not yet begun. The Court has also not yet weighed in on the merits of this case. See Gulati, 723 F. Supp. at 359 ("Since no proceedings in this court have addressed the merits of the plaintiff's remaining ... claim, judicial

economy will not be disserved by a remand.") In addition, the Court finds little inconvenience or unfairness to the parties, especially because Plaintiffs' Motion is unopposed.[1]

III. CONCLUSION

The Court exercises its discretion to remand this matter to state court and grants Plaintiffs' Motion. Because the Court no longer retains jurisdiction over this case, it denies as moot Goodrich's Proposed Order. The Court will issue an order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.

[1] Because the Court lacks jurisdiction, it declines to decide Goodrich's Proposed Order. See Chrustowski v. Cumberland Cnty. Guidance Ctr., No. 06-4847, 2006 WL 3780555, at [*2] (D.N.J. Dec. 20, 2006) ("[I]t is incumbent upon the Court to proceed to decide [the jurisdictional] motion first because, if granted, the case is remanded back to the court of initial jurisdiction for proceedings.").

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• New Jersey asbestos laws
• New Jersey asbestos exposure sites