Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Plaintiff Irma Lee LaGrange filed a motion in this asbestos action seeking the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand to state court. Defendants Huntington Ingalls Inc. (Avondale), Hopeman Brothers Inc. and other defendants opposed the motion to which LaGrange filed a reply.
LaGrange claimed to have contracted mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure by laundering her husband’s work clothes. Her husband, Allen C. LaGrange, was allegedly exposed to asbestos while working as a laborer, welder, and pipefitter at Avondale’s Bridge City, Louisiana shipyard from 1973 until 1996. Asbestos materials were used pursuant to contracts between the U.S. government — U.S. Navy, Coast Guard, and Maritime Administration — and Avondale, and a joiner contractor between Avondale and subcontractor, Hopeman.
LaGrange’s motion specifically sought to bar these defendants from using the Government Contractor Defense. She asserted that because this court already concluded that defendants cannot establish a federal contractor defense under Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 108 S. Ct. 2510, 101 L. Ed. 2d 442 (1988) and Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co., 309 U.S. 18, 60 S. Ct. 413, 84 L. Ed. 554 (1940), then all remaining claims and defenses arise under state law between parties that are not diverse. Thus, LaGrange argued the court should – at its discretion – decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
On the contrary, defendants argued the court should continue to exercise jurisdiction because it satisfied all elements of federal officer jurisdiction at the time of removal. Avondale further argued the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction because LaGrange’s claims involve no novel or complex issues of state law.
Although the “general rule” is to “decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims when all federal claims are dismissed or otherwise eliminated from a case prior to trial, this rule is neither mandatory nor absolute.” Batiste v. Island Recs. Inc., 179 F.3d 217, 227 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that district court abused its discretion in dismissing state law claims in a case that had been pending in federal court for three years and lacked any novel or difficult issues of state law). Instead, the court may, at its discretion, decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over claims for which there would be no original subject matter jurisdiction 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. § 1367(c).
In this case, the court held the statutory factors above do not weigh in favor of remanding the case back to state court. First, this matter involved asbestos exposure and failure to warn claims. These allegations did not raise any novel or complex issues of Louisiana law. Secondly, although LaGrange accurately submitted there are no federal questions remaining in this case, a federal court does not lose jurisdiction “if the facts later indicate the federal defense fails.” Williams v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 990 F.3d 852, 863 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457, 474 n.6, 127 S. Ct. 1397, 167 L. Ed. 2d 190 (2007) (“[W]hen a defendant removes a case to federal court based on the presence of a federal claim, an amendment eliminating the original basis for federal jurisdiction generally does not defeat jurisdiction.”) If, at the time of removal, the record indicates the federal contractor defense was not “insubstantial on its face or obviously frivolous,” the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims is also proper. Id.
As such, dismissal of Avondale’s federal defenses did not affect the court’s jurisdiction over this case. The court therefore continued to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining state law claims. Consequently, plaintiff’s motion to remand was denied.
Read the full decision here.
