Charles Brinkman v. General Dynamics Corporation
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:14-cv-00142-AWA-LRL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999991741].. [15-1752]
Appeal: 15-1752
Doc: 39
Filed: 12/21/2016
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1752
CHARLES B. BRINKMAN; LOUISE K. BRINKMAN,
Plaintiffs – Appellees,
v.
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION; ELECTRIC BOAT CORPORATION,
Defendants – Appellants,
and
JOHN CRANE INCORPORATED; J. HENRY HOLLAND CORPORATION;
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; WACO, INCORPORATED;
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; NOLAND COMPANY; CLEAVER-BROOKS
COMPANY, a division of Aqua-Chem, Inc.; AURORA PUMP, CO;
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, successor by merger to
Buffalo Pumps, Inc.; IMO INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED; GOULDS
PUMPS,
INCORPORATED;
INGERSOLL-RAND
COMPANY;
NASH
ENGINEERING COMPANY; WARREN PUMPS, INCORPORATED; CRANE
COMPANY; GRINNELL CORPORATION; J.R. CLARKSON COMPANY,
individually and as successor by mergers to Kunkle
Industries, Inc.; VELAN VALVE CORP.; TRANE U.S. INC.,
formerly known as American Standard, Inc.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (4:14-cv-00142-AWA-LRL)
Submitted:
November 3, 2016
Decided:
December 21, 2016
Before TRAXLER, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Appeal: 15-1752
Doc: 39
Filed: 12/21/2016
Pg: 2 of 4
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Melissa A. Murphy-Petros, WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN &
DICKER LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellants.
William W.C.
Harty, Robert R. Hatten, Hugh B. McCormick, III, PATTEN, WORNOM,
HATTEN & DIAMONSTEIN, L.C., Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 15-1752
Doc: 39
Filed: 12/21/2016
Pg: 3 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs
Charles
Brinkman
(“Brinkman”)
and
Louise
Brinkman filed suit in Circuit Court for the City of Newport
News,
Virginia,
defendants.
asserting
The
state
suit
law
alleged
claims
that
against
Brinkman
several
developed
mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos in 1966 and
1967
while
serving
submarine.
in
the
United
States
Navy
on
a
nuclear
It is undisputed that defendants General Dynamics
Corporation
and
Electric
Boat
Corporation
(“Appellants”)
constructed the submarine pursuant to a contract with the Navy.
General Dynamics timely filed a notice of removal in the
United
States
District
Court
for
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia pursuant to the federal officer removal statute, 28
U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).
colorable
federal
government
General Dynamics asserted that multiple
defenses
contractor
supported
immunity
its
under
Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988).
removal,
Boyle
including
v.
United
Electric Boat joined
the notice of removal.
The district court subsequently granted a motion to remand
filed by the Brinkmans, concluding that Appellants had failed to
allege
facts
state
law
asserting
claims
a
“colorable
asserted
against
federal
them.
defense”
to
Regarding
the
the
government contractor defense, the district court followed “a
decades-old practice in the [Eastern District of Virginia] that
3
Appeal: 15-1752
denies
Doc: 39
the
cases.”
Filed: 12/21/2016
government
Pg: 4 of 4
contractor
defense
in
failure
to
warn
Ripley v. Foster Wheeler LLC, ___ F.3d ___, 2016 WL
6441049, at *1 (Nov. 1, 2016).
However, after the district
court issued its decision, we decided for the first time “that
the government contractor defense is available in failure to
warn cases.”
Id. at *3 (emphasis added).
In light of this
recent holding, we vacate the district court’s order and remand
for further proceedings.
We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials
before
this
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?