NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WAYNE YOCUM; TINA YOCUM, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

 v. 

CBS CORPORATION, FKA Viacom, Inc., 

FKA Westinghouse Electric Corporation, a 

Delaware corporation, 

Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

FOSTER WHEELER, LLC; GENERAL 

ELECTRIC COMPANY; IMO 

INDUSTRIES, INC., individually and as 

successor in interest, parent, alter ego and 

equitable trustee of Delaval Steam Turbine 

Co.; SYD CARPENTER MARINE 

CONTRACTOR, INC.; DOES, One through 

One Hundred, inclusive, 

Defendants.

No. 17-56344 

D.C. No. 

2:17-cv-01061-SJO-AJW 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 5, 2018

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

DEC 10 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Seattle, Washington

Before: McKEOWN and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and GAITAN,** District 

Judge.

CBS Corporation (“Westinghouse”) appeals the order remanding this action 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court concluded that 

Westinghouse failed to show it had a “colorable” federal defense required for

federal officer removal. The parties are familiar with the facts, so we do not repeat 

them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1447(d), and we 

review de novo a decision to remand for a lack of jurisdiction. Lively v. Wild Oats 

Mkts., Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 938 (9th Cir. 2006). We reverse and remand.

To invoke federal officer removal, Westinghouse “must show that (1) it is a 

‘person’ within the meaning of the statute, (2) a causal nexus exists between [the

Yocums’] claims and the actions [it] took pursuant to a federal officer’s direction, 

and (3) it has a ‘colorable’ federal defense to [these] claims.” Leite v. Crane Co., 

749 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 

445 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2006)). Westinghouse’s claimed federal defense—

the military contractor defense—immunizes from state tort liability suppliers of 

“military equipment . . . when (1) the United States approved reasonably precise 

 

** The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge 

for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.
3 

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). Our court limits this defense exclusively 

to “military equipment.” Snell v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 107 F.3d 744, 746 

n.1 (9th Cir. 1997). 

The district court concluded that the asbestos insulation in the A1W nuclear 

propulsion system was not military equipment and therefore that Westinghouse did 

not present a colorable military contractor defense. See In re Haw. Fed. Asbestos 

Cases, 960 F.2d 806, 812-13 (9th Cir. 1992) (asbestos insulation is not military 

equipment). However, several of our cases are consistent with a broader framing 

of military equipment, namely that we focus on the whole product provided by the 

supplier (here, the A1W system), see, e.g., Leite, 749 F.3d at 1119-20, and none of 

our cases clearly foreclose such framing. Cf. Cabalce v. Thomas E. Blanchard & 

Assocs., Inc., 797 F.3d 720, 731 & n.5 (9th Cir. 2015) (no colorable defense 

because binding precedent limits military contractor defense to military equipment

and fireworks are not military equipment). Thus, Westinghouse has made a 

“colorable” showing that military equipment is at issue. See Leite, 749 F.3d at 

1124 (military contractor need not “prove that its [federal] defense is in fact

meritorious” to invoke federal officer removal). 
4 

As the district court concluded in its initial order denying the Yocums’ 

motion to remand, Westinghouse has met the other elements required for federal 

officer removal, so the Yocums’ two alternative grounds for affirmance are 

unavailing. As a threshold matter, Westinghouse’s evidence in support of its 

defense clears the low bar of relevance and complies with the relaxed evidentiary 

standards that govern the Yocums’ factual jurisdictional attack. See id. at 1121. 

This evidence supports at least a colorable argument that the military “approved 

reasonably precise specifications” for the equipment at issue here. For the same 

reason, Westinghouse has satisfied its burden to show that a causal nexus exists 

between the Yocums’ claims and the actions Westinghouse took pursuant to a 

federal officer’s direction.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.