Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01921/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01921-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 368
Nature of Suit: Asbestos Personal Injury - Prod.liab.
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DALE POWERS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALLIS-CHALMERS CORPORATION PRODUCT

LIABILITY TRUST, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. 10-01921 CW

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO REMAND

(Docket No. 11)

Plaintiff Dale Powers moves to remand this action to state

court. Defendant Rockwell Automation, Inc., opposes the motion. 

The motion was heard on July 15, 2010. Having considered oral

argument and all of the papers submitted by the parties, the Court

grants Plaintiff’s motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff worked as an electrician for North American Aviation

at North American Rockwell from 1956 to 1957, and at Hughes

Aircraft Company from 1957 to 1989. He also worked briefly at the

Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, around

1963 or 1964. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that he was exposed to

products containing asbestos during this time, causing him to

develop asbestosis and asbestos-related pleural disease. 

Case 4:10-cv-01921-CW Document 18 Filed 07/21/10 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1Specifically, § 1442(a)(1) provides:

A civil or criminal prosecution commenced in a State court

against any of the following persons may be removed by them to

the district court of the United States for the district and

division embracing the place wherein it is pending: (1) Any

officer of the United States or any agency thereof, or person

acting under him, for any act under color of such office or on

2

On May 6, 2009, Plaintiff filed suit in San Francisco Superior

Court alleging personal injury against numerous Defendants,

including Rockwell. From April 5 to April 8, 2010, Plaintiff was

deposed by Rockwell. On April 6, 2010, based on Plaintiff’s

testimony describing the use of Rockwell electrical equipment in

conjunction with the F-100 aircraft, Rockwell notified Plaintiff

that it intended to remove the case in order to pursue a military

contractor immunity defense in federal court. On April 7, 2010,

Plaintiff sent Rockwell a signed declaration stating that his

claims excluded liability for “asbestos exposure to or on military

or federal government aircraft.” Donadio Decl., ¶ 2. Based on

Rockwell’s judgment that all of the claims against it involved

military or federal government aircraft, it asked Plaintiff to

dismiss his claims against it. Plaintiff refused. 

On May 4, 2010, Rockwell removed this case pursuant to the

federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). 

DISCUSSION 

Rockwell argues that it properly removed this action under the

federal officer removal statute, which provides that an action may

be removed by “any officer of the United States or any agency

thereof, or person acting under him, for any act under color of

such office.” 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).1 

Case 4:10-cv-01921-CW Document 18 Filed 07/21/10 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act

of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or

the collection of the revenue.

3

Generally, removal statutes are to be strictly construed; any

doubt as to the right to remove should resolved in favor of

remanding to state court. See, e.g., Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d

564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). But that is not the case with the

federal officer removal statute. See Durham v. Lockheed Martin

Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2006). The Ninth Circuit

instructs that there is a “clear command from both Congress and the

Supreme Court that when federal officers and their agents are

seeking a federal forum, we are to interpret section 1442 broadly

in favor of removal.” Id. (noting that the Supreme Court has

"insisted that the policy favoring removal 'should not be

frustrated by a narrow, grudging interpretation of § 1442(a)(1)'"

(quoting Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232, 242 (1981))).

As the Supreme Court explained in Jefferson County v. Acker,

It is the general rule that an action may be removed from

state court to federal court only if a federal district court

would have original jurisdiction over the claim in suit. To

remove a case as one falling within federal-question

jurisdiction, the federal question ordinarily must appear on

the face of a properly pleaded complaint; an anticipated or

actual federal defense generally does not qualify a case for

removal. Suits against federal officers are exceptional in

this regard. Under the federal officer removal statute, suits

against federal officers may be removed despite the nonfederal

cast of the complaint.

527 U.S. 423, 430-31 (1999) (citations omitted). 

Removal is proper under the federal officer statute if the

defendant: (1) demonstrates that it acted under the direction of a

federal officer; (2) raises a colorable federal defense to the

Case 4:10-cv-01921-CW Document 18 Filed 07/21/10 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

plaintiff's claims; and (3) demonstrates a causal nexus between the

plaintiff's claims and the defendant's acts performed under color

of federal office. Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 124-25,

134-35 (1989); Fung v. Abex Corp., 816 F. Supp. 569, 571-72 (N.D.

Cal. 1992). 

The federal defense of military contractor immunity provides,

“Liability for design defects in military equipment cannot be

imposed, pursuant to state law, when (1) the United States approved

reasonably precise specifications; (2) the equipment conformed to

those specifications; and (3) the supplier warned the United States

about the dangers in the use of the equipment that were known to

the supplier but not to the United States.” Boyle v. United Techs.

Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 512 (1988). Here, Rockwell argues that it

operated under the direction of the federal government, that it has

raised a colorable federal defense of military contractor immunity

and that Plaintiff’s claims against it pertain to conduct it took

under such direction. 

However, Plaintiff has disclaimed and waived any claim arising

out of or related to “asbestos exposure to or on military or

federal government aircraft.” Donadio Decl., ¶ 2. Similar waiver

language was found to justify remand in a factually similar case, 

see Westbrook v. Asbestos Defendants, 2001 WL 902642, at *3 (N.D.

Cal.), and Plaintiff’s waiver justifies remand here. If Plaintiff

later attempts to reverse course, and is allowed to do so by the

state court despite his express waiver, Rockwell can remove once

again. Because Plaintiff’s waiver provides a basis for granting

his motion to remand, the Court need not address the remainder of

Case 4:10-cv-01921-CW Document 18 Filed 07/21/10 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

the issues presented in the papers.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion

to remand. (Docket No. 11). The clerk shall remand the case to

San Francisco Superior Court. The case management conference

scheduled for September 7, 2010, at 2:00 PM is vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

July 21, 2010

Case 4:10-cv-01921-CW Document 18 Filed 07/21/10 Page 5 of 5