SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(US)(ca5) 71

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
James Latiolais – Appellant
Versus
Eagle Incorporated – Respondent



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 18-30652 FILED February 24, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce JAMES A. LATIOLAIS, Clerk

Plaintiff – Appellee v. HUNTINGTON INGALLS, INCORPORATED, formerly known as Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Incorporated, formerly known as Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Incorporated, formerly known as Avondale Industries, Incorporated,

Defendant – Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Before OWEN, Chief Judge, and JONES, SMITH, STEWART, DENNIS, ELROD, SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, GRAVES, HIGGINSON, WILLETT, HO, DUNCAN, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. 1 EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge: This appeal was reconsidered en banc because Fifth Circuit precedents concerning the scope of the revised Federal Officer Removal Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), were extraordinarily confused. See Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 918 F.3d 406, 412–13 (5th Cir. 2019). Having reconsidered, we

1 Judges Dennis and Haynes concur in the judgment only. Judges Costa and Engelhardt are recused. Case: 18-30652 Document: 00515319928 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2020

No. 18-30652 strip away the confusion, align with sister circuits, and rely on the plain language of the statute, as broadened in 2011. As a result, Avondale 2 was entitled to remove this negligence case filed by a former Navy machinist because of his exposure to asbestos while the Navy’s ship was being repaired at the Avondale shipyard under a federal contract. We VACATE the contrary district court judgment and REMAND for further proceedings in federal court. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE During the 1960s and 1970s, the United States Navy contracted with the Defendant-Appellant, Avondale, to build and refurbish naval vessels. Most of the contracts in the 1960s required asbestos for thermal insulation. According to Avondale’s expert, a marine engineer and naval historian, the contracts obliged Avondale “to comply with government plans and specifications, and the federal government had the right to and did exercise supervision over the process to ensure such compliance.” The Plaintiff-Appellee, James Latiolais, then a machinist aboard the USS Tappahannock, was exposed to asbestos while his ship underwent refurbishing at Avondale for several months. In 2017, Latiolais was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He died in October 2017. 3 Latiolais sued Avondale in Louisiana state court for causing him to contract mesothelioma. He asserted, inter alia, that Avondale negligently failed to warn him about asbestos hazards and failed to provide adequate safety equipment. He did not allege strict liability claims against Avondale.

2The Defendant-Appellant has borne many names, including Huntington Ingalls, Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, and Avondale Industries. Because the parties refer to the Defendant-Appellant as Avondale, the court does the same.

3Although Latiolais died shortly after filing his petition in Louisiana state court, no party argues that his death affects any issue in this appeal. 2 Case: 18-30652 Document: 00515319928 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/24/2020

No. 18-30652 Avondale

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top