The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
PATRICIA JACKSON * CIVIL ACTION
*
VERSUS * NO. 20-1005
*
AVONDALE INDUSTRIES INC. ET AL * SECTION “L” (5)
ORDER & REASONS
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lacking, Plaintiff asserts “this case has now undeniably been withdrawn from the ambit of the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).
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 mvolving 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 1s raised in the well-pleaded complamt, 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 foregomg,
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 Cwil District Court
for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 8th day of May, 2020.
lg Clon,
Eldon E. Fallon
United States District Judge