Savoie v. Huntington Ingalls (2022)

Our plain-English summary of Savoie v. Huntington Ingalls (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, March 17, 2022).

Lorita Savoie and the couple's children sued over the death of Joseph B. Savoie, Jr., who died from mesothelioma after asbestos exposure at the Avondale Shipyards. The suit was filed in New Orleans state court in 2014. The Avondale defendants removed it to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, and the Fifth Circuit upheld that removal. In November 2021, a week before trial, the court dismissed the Avondale defendants, Eagle, Inc. and Foster Wheeler after a settlement. The plaintiffs then added insurers of two bankrupt companies, Reilly-Benton and The McCarty Corporation. The plaintiffs asked to send the case back to state court, arguing that complete diversity was lacking and that the parties who had justified removal were gone. The court denied the motion. It held that diversity is measured when the suit is filed, so adding a Louisiana party later did not defeat jurisdiction. It also kept the state-law claims because the case had been pending for years, had over 700 docket entries and extensive discovery, raised no novel state-law issues, and had nearly gone to trial.

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: March 17, 2022
• Docket: Civil Action No. 15-1220
• Stage: Jurisdiction, venue or removal
• State: Louisiana

Outcome. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand and kept the case in federal court after the Avondale defendants were dismissed, with the insurer defendants prevailing.

What the court held. A federal court may keep supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal-officer defendants are dismissed, given the case's age, extensive discovery, absence of novel state-law issues, and judicial resources already spent. Diversity is judged when the action is filed, so adding a nondiverse party later does not defeat it.

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

The people and their exposure

• Joseph B. Savoie, Jr.: mesothelioma; died

Who	Work	Where	When	Products
Joseph B. Savoie, Jr.	(shipyards and maritime work)	Avondale Shipyards, Louisiana

The defendants

• Century Indemnity Company (insurer)
• Employers Insurance Company of Wausau (insurer)
• Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (insurer)
• Pacific Employers Insurance Company (insurer)
• Huntington Ingalls Inc. (premises owner)

Other decisions in this case

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

• Savoie v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. (June 8, 2015). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand to Louisiana state court, rejecting Avondale/Huntington Ingalls's federal officer removal, and denied the plaintiffs' request for sanctions.
• Savoie v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. (June 2, 2017). On remand from the Fifth Circuit, the court denied the plaintiffs' (Savoie family) motion to remand, finding Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) and the other defendants made a colorable government contractor defense, so federal officer removal stands.
• Savoie v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. (October 12, 2017). The court granted Owens-Illinois's re-urged exception of res judicata, holding the 1996 release barred the Savoie family's mesothelioma, wrongful death and survival claims against Owens-Illinois.
• Savoie v. Huntington Ingalls (March 26, 2019). The court granted the Avondale Interests' motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' wrongful death claims against them and Travelers Indemnity Company, leaving the survival claim in place.
• Savoie v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (June 10, 2019). The court granted in part and denied in part Avondale's motion, holding that five of eight earlier releases (Champion, Met Life, Amchem, Chesterton, A.P. Green) covered Savoie's future mesothelioma claim, while the B & W, Combustion Engineering and Garlock releases did not.

Decisions this opinion cites

Earlier decisions in our library that the court cited:

• Savoie v. Huntington Ingalls, Incorporated (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2016). The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's order remanding the case to state court, holding the shipyard showed a causal nexus for the survival strict liability claims, and remanded for the district court to decide whether the shipyard has a colorable federal defense; the Savoie family lost on the remand ruling.

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.

LORITA SAVOIE, ET AL.

v.

HUNTINGTON INGALLS, ET AL., SECTION: "J"(3).

Civil Action No. 15-1220.

March 17, 2022.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

ORDER & REASONS

CARL J. BARBIER, District Judge.

Before the Court is a Motion to Remand to State Court (Rec. Doc. 714) filed by Plaintiffs, Tania Savoie Alexander, Greta Savoie Boudoin, Marcia Savoie Medlin, Craig M. Savoie, Dale J. Savoie, and Rodney A. Savoie ("Plaintiffs"). Defendants, Century Indemnity Company, Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and Pacific Employers Insurance Company ("Defendants"), oppose the motion (Rec. Doc. 716). Having considered the motion and memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the motion should be DENIED.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This matter arises from an asbestos exposure at the Avondale Shipyards. Plaintiffs are the wife and children of Joseph B. Savoie, Jr., who died from mesothelioma.

This lawsuit was originally in the Orleans Parish Civil District Court on August 21, 2014. (Rec. Doc. 1-1). On April 16, 2015, the Avondale Interests[1] removed the lawsuit to federal court based on the Federal Officer Removal Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442. (Rec. Doc. 1) Plaintiffs then filed a motion to remand, which this Court initially granted but the Fifth Circuit reversed. Savoie v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 817 F.3d 457, 466 (5th Cir. 2016). On remand from the Fifth Circuit, this Court held that the Avondale Interests presented a colorable defense of federal contractor immunity and removal was proper. Savoie v. Penn. Gen. Ins. Co., No. 15-1220, 2017 WL 2391264, at [*7] (E.D. La. June 2, 2017).

On November 18, 2021, after advisement that a settlement with certain parties had been reached, the Court dismissed the Avondale Interests, Eagle, Inc., and Foster Wheeler LLC from the case. (Rec. Doc. 682). That same day, Plaintiffs filed a Third Supplemental and Amending Complaint naming numerous insurers of Reilly-Benton Company, Inc. and The McCarty Corporation, who filed for bankruptcy amid the suit, as Defendants. (Rec. Doc. 683).

With the Avondale Interests dismissed from the suit, Plaintiffs now move to remand this case state court once more. LEGAL STANDARD

Generally, a federal court should dismiss pendent state claims when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, although that rule "is neither absolute nor automatic." Newport Ltd. v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 941 F.2d 302, 307 (5th Cir. 1991). Federal courts retain broad discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. Id.; see also Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351 (1988). Federal courts may decline to hear the remaining claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 if:

(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,

(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,

(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or

(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.

28 U.S.C.A. § 1367(c). Courts must also weigh the values of "judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity." Carnegie-Mellon Univ., 484 U.S. at 350.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs argue this case should be remanded, because (1) complete diversity is lacking and (2) the Avondale Interests, the parties with the basis for removal, are no longer parties to this litigation.

First, the addition of a Louisiana party does not defeat diversity jurisdiction, as there was diversity of citizenship at the time of filing. "[D]iversity of citizenship is assessed at the time that the action is filed. . . Diversity jurisdiction, once established, is not defeated by the addition of a nondiverse party to the action. A contrary rule could well have the effect of deterring normal business transactions during the pendency of what might be lengthy litigation." Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991).

Second, although courts generally decline supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims have been dismissed, the balance of factors in the present case favor maintenance of this action in federal court. The present matter is similar to Vedros v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc., in which the plaintiff died of mesothelioma after asbestos exposure at the Avondale Shipyards. 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57268, at [*7] (E.D. La. Apr. 24, 2014). In Vedros, the plaintiff filed suit against multiple defendants in state court, and three defendants, General Electric, Foster-Wheeler, and Westinghouse, subsequently removed the case pursuant to the federal officer removal statute. Id. at 7-8. Parties completed extensive discovery, over 300 documents were filed in federal court, and after becoming "intimately familiar with the facts of the case," the Court determined the case was ripe for trial. Id. at 9. After the Court dismissed the claims against General Electric, Foster-Wheeler, and Westinghouse, which were the parties that removed pursuant to federal officer removal, Plaintiffs then moved to remand. Id. at 9-10. The court declined to remand the case to state court reasoning that:

this case is similar to several other cases where district courts in this circuit have properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction where the matters have been pending in federal court for several years, extensive discovery has occurred and numerous documents have been filed, discovery is closed, the case is ripe for trial, there are no novel or overly complex issues of state law, and the district court has already expended significant judicial resources and decided multiple dispositive motions.

Id. at 13 (citing Newport Ltd. V. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 941 F.2d 302, 307-08 (5th Cir. 1991); Batiste v. Island Records, Inc., 179 F3d 217, 227-28 (5th Cir. 1999); Brookshire Bros. Holding Inc. v. Dayco Prods, Inc., 554 F.3d 595, 602-04 (5th Cir. 2009); Doddy v. Oxy USA, Inc., 101 F.3d 448, 455-56 (5th Cir. 1996); Port of S. La. v. Tri-Parish Indus., Inc., 927 F.Supp. 2d 332, 338-39 (E.D. La. 2013); Chauvin v. Radioshack Corp., No. 08-4255, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30564, at [*2]-3 (E.D. La. Apr. 9, 2009)).

Based on the reasoning in Vedros, this Court declines to remand this case to state court. This case has been pending in this Court for several years. There are over 700 docket entries to date, extensive discovery has been completed, and parties nearly went to trial November 29, 2021, but for the dismissal of the Avondale Interests one week prior to trial. This asbestos case presents no novel or overly complex issues of state law, and this court has already expended significant judicial resources and is intimately familiar with the facts of this case.

For these reasons, the Court declines to remand the case to state court.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Motion to Remand to State Court (Rec. Doc. 714) is DENIED.

[1] Avondale Interests include Huntington Ingalls Inc., Albert Bossier, Jr., J. Melton Garrett, OneBeacon America Insurance Company, and Pennsylvania General Insurance Company.

Sources

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