Savoie et al v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Company et al

Filing 717

ORDER AND REASONS denying 714 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 3/17/22. (cg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LORITA SAVOIE, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-1220

HUNTINGTON INGALLS, ET AL.

SECTION: “J”(3)

ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Remand to State Court (Rec. Doc. 714) filed
by Plaintiffs, Tania Savoie Alexander, Greta Savoie Boudoin, Marcia Savoie Medlin,
Craig M. Savoie, Dale J. Savoie, and Rodney A. Savoie (“Plaintiffs”). Defendants,
Century Indemnity Company, Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, Liberty
Mutual

Insurance

Company,

and

Pacific

Employers

Insurance

Company

(“Defendants”), oppose the motion (Rec. Doc. 716). Having considered the motion and
memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the motion
should be DENIED.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This matter arises from an asbestos exposure at the Avondale Shipyards.
Plaintiffs are the wife and children of Joseph B. Savoie, Jr., who died from
mesothelioma.
This lawsuit was originally in the Orleans Parish Civil District Court on
August 21, 2014. (Rec. Doc. 1-1). On April 16, 2015, the Avondale Interests 1 removed

Avondale Interests include Huntington Ingalls Inc., Albert Bossier, Jr., J. Melton Garrett, OneBeacon America
Insurance Company, and Pennsylvania General Insurance Company.

1

1

the lawsuit to federal court based on the Federal Officer Removal Statute, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1442. (Rec. Doc. 1) Plaintiffs then filed a motion to remand, which this Court
initially granted but the Fifth Circuit reversed. Savoie v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc.,
817 F.3d 457, 466 (5th Cir. 2016). On remand from the Fifth Circuit, this Court held
that the Avondale Interests presented a colorable defense of federal contractor
immunity and removal was proper. Savoie v. Penn. Gen. Ins. Co., No. 15-1220, 2017
WL 2391264, at *7 (E.D. La. June 2, 2017).
On November 18, 2021, after advisement that a settlement with certain parties
had been reached, the Court dismissed the Avondale Interests, Eagle, Inc., and Foster
Wheeler LLC from the case. (Rec. Doc. 682). That same day, Plaintiffs filed a Third
Supplemental and Amending Complaint naming numerous insurers of Reilly-Benton
Company, Inc. and The McCarty Corporation, who filed for bankruptcy amid the suit,
as Defendants. (Rec. Doc. 683).
With the Avondale Interests dismissed from the suit, Plaintiffs now move to
remand this case state court once more.
LEGAL STANDARD
Generally, a federal court should dismiss pendent state claims when all
federal claims are dismissed before trial, although that rule "is neither absolute nor
automatic." Newport Ltd. v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 941 F.2d 302, 307 (5th Cir.
1991). Federal courts retain broad discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over any remaining state law claims. Id.; see also Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill,

2

484 U.S. 343, 351 (1988). Federal courts may decline to hear the remaining claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 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.A. § 1367(c). Courts must also weigh the values of "judicial economy,
convenience, fairness, and comity." Carnegie-Mellon Univ., 484 U.S. at 350.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs argue this case should be remanded, because (1) complete diversity
is lacking and (2) the Avondale Interests, the parties with the basis for removal, are
no longer parties to this litigation.
First, the addition of a Louisiana party does not defeat diversity jurisdiction,
as there was diversity of citizenship at the time of filing. “[D]iversity of citizenship is
assessed at the time that the action is filed . . . Diversity jurisdiction, once established,
is not defeated by the addition of a nondiverse party to the action. A contrary rule
could well have the effect of deterring normal business transactions during the
pendency of what might be lengthy litigation.” Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N
Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991).
Second, although courts generally decline supplemental jurisdiction when
federal claims have been dismissed, the balance of factors in the present case favor
maintenance of this action in federal court. The present matter is similar to Vedros
3

v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc., in which the plaintiff died of mesothelioma
after asbestos exposure at the Avondale Shipyards. 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57268, at
*7 (E.D. La. Apr. 24, 2014). In Vedros, the plaintiff filed suit against multiple
defendants in state court, and three defendants, General Electric, Foster-Wheeler,
and Westinghouse, subsequently removed the case pursuant to the federal officer
removal statute. Id. at 7-8. Parties completed extensive discovery, over 300
documents were filed in federal court, and after becoming “intimately familiar with
the facts of the case,” the Court determined the case was ripe for trial. Id. at 9. After
the Court dismissed the claims against General Electric, Foster-Wheeler, and
Westinghouse, which were the parties that removed pursuant to federal officer
removal, Plaintiffs then moved to remand. Id. at 9-10. The court declined to remand
the case to state court reasoning that:
this case is similar to several other cases where district courts in this circuit
have properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction where the matters have
been pending in federal court for several years, extensive discovery has
occurred and numerous documents have been filed, discovery is closed, the case
is ripe for trial, there are no novel or overly complex issues of state law, and
the district court has already expended significant judicial resources and
decided multiple dispositive motions.
Id. at 13 (citing Newport Ltd. V. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 941 F.2d 302, 307-08 (5th
Cir. 1991); Batiste v. Island Records, Inc., 179 F3d 217, 227-28 (5th Cir. 1999);
Brookshire Bros. Holding Inc. v. Dayco Prods, Inc., 554 F.3d 595, 602-04 (5th Cir.
2009); Doddy v. Oxy USA, Inc., 101 F.3d 448, 455-56 (5th Cir. 1996); Port of S. La. v.
Tri-Parish Indus., Inc., 927 F.Supp. 2d 332, 338-39 (E.D. La. 2013); Chauvin v.

4

Radioshack Corp., No. 08-4255, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30564, at *2-3 (E.D. La. Apr.
9, 2009)).
Based on the reasoning in Vedros¸ this Court declines to remand this case to
state court. This case has been pending in this Court for several years. There are over
700 docket entries to date, extensive discovery has been completed, and parties nearly
went to trial November 29, 2021, but for the dismissal of the Avondale Interests one
week prior to trial. This asbestos case presents no novel or overly complex issues of
state law, and this court has already expended significant judicial resources and is
intimately familiar with the facts of this case.
For these reasons, the Court declines to remand the case to state court.
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Motion to Remand to State Court (Rec. Doc.
714) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 17th day of March, 2022.

____________________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5