Jurisdiction: Louisiana Eastern District Court
Plaintiff Nolan J. LeBoeuf worked at the Avondale Shipyard in Westwego, La. for several years during the 1970s and 1980s. He also frequently visited coworkers on his days off during his employment. Plaintiff alleged that asbestos exposure from the shipyard caused his mesothelioma. Specifically, plaintiff asserted that Avondale failed to educate and warn him of the dangers of asbestos during his employment.
Plaintiff filed this action in Louisiana State Court and alleged Avondale was negligent in failing to warn, disclose, or protect him from asbestos exposure. Avondale removed the matter to federal courton the basis that Avondale acted under an officer of the United States. Critically, every vessel plaintiff ever worked on at the shipyard was the product of a contract between Avondale and the United States government. Avondale thus asserted it was entitled to government contractor immunity, as well as the federal defense of derivative sovereign immunity. See Boyle v. United Techs. Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1998); Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co., 309 U.S. 18 (1940).
Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether Avondale had immunity for the alleged failure to warn or protect, and whether the federal government contractor defense shielded Avondale from liability. Avondale opposed and contended it followed federal safety measures and regulations during plaintiff’s employment. The court determined the federal government contractor defense did not apply and granted plaintiff summary judgment on March 7. Plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court after the decision, contendingthat the federal court no longer had jurisdiction.
The court recognized the Federal Officer Removal Statute permits the “United States or any agency thereof (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any color of such office . . ..” 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).” LeBoeuf v Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 2025 US Dist LEXIS 92468, at *2-3 [ED La May 15, 2025, No. 24-1695]. This statute applies regardless of whether the plaintiff asserts a federal claim. Jefferson Cnty., Ala. v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423, 431 (1999). In order to remove an action under Section 1442(a), a defendant must show: 1) it has asserted a colorable defense, (2) it is a ‘person’ within the meaning of the statute, (3) it 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. Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 951 F.3d 286, 296 (5th Cir. 2020) (citing Winters v. Diamon Shamrock Chem. Co., 149 F.3d 387, 396-400 (5th Cir. 1998)).
After recognizing that the Fifth Circuitpreviously ruled on similar issues, the court decided that Avondale satisfied the Latiolais conditions. Specifically, Avondale “asserted a ‘colorable federal defense’ under Boyle. In addition, Avondale’s failure to warn and prevent, as well as its installation of asbestos, was pursuant to U.S. Navy directions. The Fifth Circuitfurther determinedthat a district court could not “lose jurisdiction” under Section 1442(a). Instead, the court retains jurisdiction unless the defense was “insubstantial on its face” or “obviously frivolous” at the time of filing.
As such, the court determined plaintiff’s contentions had no effect on its jurisdiction under Section 1442(a). Thus, the court retained jurisdiction over this matter and denied plaintiff’s motion to remand.
Read the full decision here.
