# Murphy v. Air Liquid Systems Inc

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · August 3, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10154162

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** August 3, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10154162

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TIMOTHY MURPHY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 21-cv-519-DWD
)
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS, INC., et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
On May 28, 2021, Defendant ViacomCBS, Inc.! (“Westinghouse”) removed this
asbestos liability action from the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair
County, Illinois to this Court asserting “federal officer” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1442(a)(1) (Doc. 1). Now before the Court is Plaintiff Timothy Murphy’s Motion for
Remand Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (Doc. 20) to which Defendant Westinghouse
responded (Doc. 34; Doc. 37). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion.
Background
On February 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Westinghouse and thirty-
seven other defendants? in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair

1 ViacomCBS Inc., f/k/a CBS Corporation, f/k/a Viacom Inc., successor by merger to CBS Corporation,
f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation
Plaintiff's original complaint named the following Defendants: Air and Liquid Systems, Inc., Alfa Laval,
Inc., A.O. Smith Water Products Company, Armstrong International, Inc., Armstrong Pumps, Inc., Aurora
Pump Company, BW/IP International, Carrier Corporation, CBS Corporation, Crane Co., Electrolux Home
Products, Flowserve US, Inc., as successor-in-interest to Durametallic Corporation, FlowServe US, Inc.,
solely as successor to Rockwell Manufacturing Company Edward Valves, Inc., Nordstrom valves, Inc. and
Vogt Valve Company, FMC Corporation, Foster Wheeler, LLC, Gardner Denver, Inc., General Electric
Company, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Goulds Pump, LLC, Grinnell LLC, Imo Industries, Inc., ITT, LLC,

County, Illinois (Doc. 1-1; Doc. 20-2). Westinghouse was served with the Complaint on
February 22, 2021 (Doc. 20-5). Plaintiff asserts, inter alia, products liability and negligence
claims for injuries that Plaintiff allegedly suffered from exposure to Defendants’ asbestos-
containing products (Doc. 1-1; Doc. 20-2).
In his complaint, Plaintiff specifically alleges that he developed asbestosis on or
about March 20, 2018 (Doc. 1-1, 7). Plaintiff asserts that he served as a machinist’s mate
in the U.S. Navy aboard the U.S.S. Frank E. Evans (DD754) from 1965 to 1968 (Doc. 1-1,
1), and he “was exposed to asbestos while working in the engine room and maintaining,
cleaning, and operating engine room equipment aboard the U.S.S. Frank E. Evans” (Doc.
1-1, ¥ 1). Plaintiff alleges that he “was exposed to and inhaled asbestos fibers emanating
from certain products he was working with and around, which were manufactured, sold,
distributed or installed by the each of the above named Defendants.” (Doc. 1-1, { 2). On
April 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding Defendant General Dynamics
Corporation (Doc. 20-6). The amended complaint contained the same allegations as the
original complaint (Doc. 20-6).
On March 18, 2021, Westinghouse filed a Motion to Dismiss asserting a lack of
personal jurisdiction (Doc. 20-3). In its Motion, Westinghouse confirmed that Plaintiff
was asserting liability based on “asbestos exposure he experienced while serving in the

John Crane, Inc., Johnson Controls, Inc., Lamons Gasket Company, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Crown
Cork & Seal Co., Inc. Nash Engineering Company, Rockwell Automation, Inc., Ryobi motor Products
Corporation, Spirax Sarco Inc., Strahman Valve Corp, Union Carbide Corporation, Velan Valve Corp.,
ViacomCBS, Inc., Viad Corp, and Warren Pumps, LLC (Doc. 1-1, pp. 1-2).

US Navy from 1965 to 1968 as a machinist mate aboard the USS Frank E. Evans DD-754,
working in the engine room maintaining various equipment” (Doc. 20-3, p. 1).
On April 23, 2021, Plaintiff served Westinghouse discovery responses (Doc. 20-4;
Doc. 34; Doc. 37-2).3 Westinghouse admits that Plaintiff served his discovery responses
on April 23, 2021 but alleges that its attorneys “did not save those responses to its system
until April 26, 2021” (Doc. 34, § 4; Doc. 37, p.2). In his discovery responses, Plaintiff
confirmed that his asbestos allegations were limited to his employment with the United
States Navy, and specifically when he was aboard the U.S.S. Frank E. Evans (DD-764)
from August 13, 1965 to December 11, 1968 (Doc. 20-4, pp. 3-4; Doc. 37, pp. 3-4). Plaintiff
also provided a description of his duties aboard the U.S.S. Frank E. Evans and the
asbestos-containing products he was allegedly exposed to in response to Interrogatory 5:
(e) Plaintiff served as a Machinist Mate from about 1964 - 1968.
Throughout his time in the Navy, he engaged in installation, removal, and
replacement of, and observation of installation, removal and replacement
of, original and replacement asbestos-containing products (ACP), including
but not limited to asbestos block insulation, preformed asbestos pipe
insulation, asbestos jackets, asbestos pads, asbestos cloth, “valve diapers”,
asbestos insulating cement and asbestos finishing cement), asbestos sheet
gasket materials, asbestos ring packing, asbestos rope packing, asbestos
sheet packing materials, asbestos electrical wiring wrap, asbestos cable
wrap, asbestos paper (flash guards), asbestos cement shields, asbestos arc
chutes, asbestos arc quenchers and phenolic asbestos plastic moulding
compounds like Bakelite and Micarta. These duties included but were not
limited to: removal and replacement of pump and drive casing flange
gaskets, pipe and valve flange gaskets, valve stem packing, stuffing box
packing; mechanical seals, impeller wearing rings, labyrinth packing and
shaft sleeves; observation of and assistance in cleaning, maintenance,
removals and repairs of electrical equipment; rewiring, repairing and
Plaintiff and Westinghouse both maintain that these discovery responses were served on April 23, 2021
(Doc. 20-4; Doc. 34; Doc. 37, p. 2). Apart from the parties’ representations, there is no date or certificate of
service on the discovery responses currently in the Court's record. Instead, the only date provided on the
responses is a verification signed by Plaintiff and dated April 13, 2021 (Doc. 20-4, p. 22; Doc. 37-2, p. 21).

cleaning asbestos dust from electric motors, switchgears and switchgear
boxes, distribution panels and panel boxes, circuit breakers and circuit
breaker boxes, ; cleaning, repairing and replacing arc chutes and arc
quenchers; grinding, drilling out, sawing and sanding switchgear boxes
insulated with ACP; relining electrical boxes with flash guards; repairing
and replacing phenolic asbestos plastic compound insulators; cleaning and
removal of asbestos dust and debris from engine rooms and equipment;
standing to watch in engine rooms during and following maintenance and
repairs involving ACP; and working in and standing to watch in the engine
rooms in drydock during rip-outs, renovations and replacements of ACP.

(g) Inhaled asbestos particles which contributed to long-term
development of asbestosis; burn injury at sea aboard Frank E. Evans in
approx. 1967, localized to leg, caused by ruptured line on steam pump; not
hospitalized.
(Doc. 20-4, pp. 3-4; Doc. 37, pp. 3-4).
Further, on Plaintiff's Work History Sheet, he supplied that he used the following
materials while working on the U.S.S. Frank E. Evans: “Insulation, lagging, gaskets,
packing, cement, arc chutes, windings, switchgears, panels, wiring, plug boards,
contactors, motors, heaters, valves, pumps, turbines, generators, coolers, tanks, boilers,
forced draft blowers, regulators, HVAC, refrigeration, distillers, etc. Investigation and
discovery continue.” (Doc. 20-4, p. 20; Doc. 37-2, p. 19).
Discussion
As the removing party, Westinghouse bears the burden of demonstrating removal
is proper. Boyd v. Phoenix Funding Corp., 366 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2004). Removal is
proper “if it is based on statutorily permissible grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, and if it is
timely. 28 U.S.C. § 1446.” Id. Here, the parties only dispute the timeliness of
Westinghouse’s Notice of Removal (Doc. 20-1, p. 4).

A notice of removal must be filed “within 30 days after the receipt by the
defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the
claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
However, if the complaint does not reveal the case is removable, “[t]he 30-day removal
clock is triggered by the defendant's receipt of a pleading or other paper that affirmatively
and unambiguously reveals that the case is or has become removable.” Walker v. Trailer
Transit, Inc., 727 F.3d 819, 821 (7th Cir.2013); 29 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3); see also Speedy v. 3M
Company, 2015 WL 2265410, at *2 (S.D. Ill. May 12, 2015). Westinghouse’s basis for
removal is the federal officer removal statute under which the removing defendant “must
show it was a (1) ‘person’ (2) ‘acting under’ the United States, its agencies, or its officers
(3) that has been sued ‘for or relating to any act under color of such office,’ and (4) has a
colorable federal defense to the plaintiff's claim.” Ruppel v. CBS Corp., 701 F.3d 1176 (7th
Cir.2012) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) and Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 132-34 (1989)).4
As such, Westinghouse had to remove this case, if at all, within 30 days of the “receipt of

a pleading or other paper that affirmatively and unambiguously reveals” the case was
removable under the foregoing federal officer removal standard.
Plaintiff contends that service of his Complaint, or in the alternative, his discovery
responses, triggered the 30-day removal period, arguing that the pleadings contained
sufficient information about Plaintiff’s work history, exposure to asbestos, the types of
products he was exposed to, and the manufacturer of those products so that

Plaintiff does not dispute that the elements of the federal officer removal are satisfied (Doc. 20-1, p. 4).

Westinghouse knew that the case was removable. (Doc. 20-1). Westinghouse, however,
argues that it could not determine based on Plaintiff's Complaint or interrogatory
responses whether Plaintiff was asserting liability based on Plaintiff's exposure to
Westinghouse specific products (Doc. 37). In this regard, Westinghouse asserts that it did
not learn of Plaintiff's specific allegations relating to the Westinghouse’s products present
on the U.S.S. Frank E. Evans until Plaintiff's deposition, which was taken on April 28,
2021 (Doc. 37). Westinghouse filed its Notice of Removal on May 28, 2021 (Doc. 1).
Unfortunately for Westinghouse, the removal statute only requires a defendant to
have a “reasonable certainty of federal jurisdiction, not an absolute certainty.” Fields v.
Jay Henges Enterprises, Inc., 2006 WL 1875457, at *6 (S.D. IIL. June 30, 2006); see Betzner v.
Boeing Co., 910 F.3d 1010, 1014-1016 (7th Cir. 2018) (Notice of removal need only contain
“a short and plain statement of the grounds of removal” and the allegations supporting
removal need only be plausible on their face). Accordingly, the 30-day removal period is
triggered when removal becomes “ascertainable,” not when it becomes “uncontestable.”
Addison v. CBS Corp., 2013 WL 6169155, at *3 (S.D. II. 2013) (Nov. 25, 2013); Fields v. Jay
Henges Enterprises, Inc., 2006 WL 1875457, at *3 (S.D. Ill. 2006); Brown v. Amchem Products,
Inc., 2020 WL 1150223, at * 5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2020) (collecting cases).
Numerous courts have found that once a Plaintiff identifies specific worksite
locations, time periods, and asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by
defendant companies, nothing further is necessary to ascertain removability under the
federal officer removal statute. See, e.g., Speedy, 2015 WL 2265410, at *3 (Finding that
plaintiffs’ interrogatory answers specifying specific worksites and asbestos-containing

products supplied the “nexus” between asbestos claims and defendant's alleged actions
from which it could conclude the case was removable under the federal officer removal
statute); Addison, 2013 WL 6169155, at *2-*3 (citing cases) (Finding Plaintiff's complaint
and interrogatory responses alleging asbestos exposure to his contact with military
equipment produced by defendant during his service in the Air Force provided sufficient
notice for defendant to ascertain removability); Hilbert v. McDonnel Douglas Corp., 529
F.Supp.2d 187, 195 (D. Mass. 2008) (30-day removal window started once plaintiff
detailed the particular aircraft he worked on and the manufacturer allegedly responsible
for making the asbestos-containing brakes for each aircraft because the document
allowed defendants to reasonably identify which government contracts were at issue);
Beamis v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc., 2009 WL 462543, at *3 (D.R.I. Feb. 23, 2009) (“Plaintiff must
provide sufficiently specific facts or allegations to allow the defendant reasonably to
identify the contracts through which the federal officer defense is being asserted.”)
(internal markings omitted).
Further, defendants may not ignore facts that are readily known to it, such as the
brands they control and the items they manufacture. See, e.g., Domenic Pezzo v. Air &
Liquid Systems, Corp., 2021 WL 2852036, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 8, 2021) (A defendant “is
presumed to be familiar with its own business and to understand the case materials in
light of that familiarity); Levy v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co., 2012 WL 2878140 at *3
(S.D.N.Y. Jul. 13, 2012) (Noting that defendant did not require any information from
plaintiff to know that it had been acting under the direction of the Navy in designing,
manufacturing, and selling products to the Navy); Dilks v. 4520 Corp., Inc., 2012 WL

6625867, at *4 n.12 (D. Md. Dec. 18, 2012) (“an asbestos plaintiff is not expected to know
and disclose minute details of exposure that occurred decades earlier”).
Here, after Westinghouse was served with the Plaintiff's complaint on February
22, 2021, and certainly after Plaintiff served his interrogatory responses on April 23, 2021,
nothing further was necessary to ascertain or assess removability of the claim against
Westinghouse. In his Complaint, Plaintiff specifically alleged exposure from his time
aboard the “U.S.S. Frank E. Evans from 1965 to 1968” while “working in the engine room
and maintaining, cleaning, and operating engine equipment”, and from “asbestos fibers
emanating from certain products he was working with and around, which were
manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by” Westinghouse (Doc. 1-1, pp. 1-2, [{ 2-3).
Plaintiff then expounded on this exposure in his discovery responses by specifically
identifying exposure from certain asbestos-containing products and materials (Doc. 20-4,
pp. 3-4; Doc. 37, pp. 3-4, 19) which Westinghouse acknowledges it designed,
manufactured, supplied, or installed aboard the U.S.S. Frank E. Evans prior to 1945 (Doc.
1, 6-8). These allegations provided Westinghouse with sufficient information from
which it could have concluded that Plaintiff's allegations arose while Westinghouse was
acting under the direction of the United States Navy so to ascertain removability.
Westinghouse’s decision to wait until after Plaintiff confirmed his alleged
exposure to Westinghouse’s specific products and materials at his deposition does not
excuse Westinghouse’s delay in removing this action when Plaintiff’s prior disclosures
represented that Plaintiff was exposed to products installed aboard the U.S.S. Frank E.
Evans. See McCoy by Webb v. General Motors Corp., 226 F.Supp.2d 939, 941 (N.D. Ill. 2002)

(“[A] defendant who wishes to remove a case to federal court cannot ‘wait for discovery
responses that simply confirm what was obvious from the face of the complaint; in such
cases, defendants are not insulated from a remand to state court.’”). Because
Westinghouse removed the case more than 30 days after the discovery responses were
served, the removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3), and this case must be
remanded.
Disposition
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Remand (Doc. 20). It is
ORDERED that this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), be REMANDED to the
Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois.
Defendant did not lack an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal, so no
fees or costs are awarded. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to transmit a certified copy
of this Order to the clerk of the state court, and thereafter to CLOSE this case.
All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT, and all deadlines and hearings are
CANCELLED.
SO ORDERED. “
Dated: August 3, 2021 Jie (Vv J
DAVIDW.DUGAN
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10154162. Public record. Not legal advice.