Stuart et al v. ABB, Inc. et al
MINUTE ORDER granting plaintiff's 34 Emergency Motion to Remand. This action is REMANDED, effective immediately, to King County Superior Court. Authorized by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (SWT)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
SAMUEL PRICE STUART and
ANITA LOUISE STUART,
ABB, Inc., et al.,
The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable
Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge:
Plaintiffs’ motion to remand, docket no. 34, is GRANTED. The complaint
alleges, in part, that plaintiff Samuel Price Stuart worked at Newport News Shipbuilding
on Navy submarines. Defendants properly removed this matter on October 9, 2017,
asserting the Federal Officer Removal Statute, 28 U.S.C. §1441(a) in light of allegations
of exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products manufactured, used and/or sold
On October 13, 2017, plaintiffs filed this motion to remand stating in relevant part:
To resolve any uncertainty or differing interpretations concerning
Plaintiffs’ claims, Plaintiffs now disclaim and waive any claims that could
possibly give rise to federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiffs disclaim,
forevermore, any and all causes of action for any exposures of any kind to
asbestos dust while Samuel Stuart was working on submarines at Newport
News Shipbuilding, and further disclaim, forevermore, any and all causes
of action that arise from the direction of a federal officer and/or from a
MINUTE ORDER - 1
1 Motion at 3.
As a result of plaintiff’s express claim disclaimer of any claim relating to work at
Newport News Shipbuilding, remand is appropriate. See Hayden v. 3M Co.,
No. 15-2275, 2015 WL 4730741, at *3–4 (E.D. La. Aug 10, 2015); Fisher v. Asbestos
Corp. Ltd., No. 2:14–cv–02338–WGY–(FFMx), 2014 WL 3752020, at *3–6 (C.D. Cal.
July 30, 2014); Coury v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp., No. 3:16–cv–01796–SB, 2017 WL
2345688, at *2–4 (D. Or. Mar. 21, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, No.
3:16–cv–01796–SB, 2017 WL 2345584 (D. Or. May 26, 2017). The form of plaintiff’s
post-remand waiver does not undercut its effectiveness. Lara v. CBS Corp., No. CV 13–
5569 ABC (MANx), 2013 WL 4807168 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2013). Similarly, plaintiffs’
discovery responses after its motion to dismiss do not prevent remand. Because plaintiffs
have made an express claim disclaimer of all exposures originating from Newport News
Shipbuilding, there are no claims giving rise to federal officer removal jurisdiction. See
Batchelor v. Am. Optical Corp., 185 F. Supp. 3d. 1358, 1364–65 (S.D. Fla. 2016)
(remanding case when plaintiff made it “abundantly clear” that he only sought recovery
for asbestos exposure occurring at specific locations that have no relation to the U.S.
Navy). Accordingly, plaintiff’s disclaimer is sufficient to warrant remand of this action
where removal was based on the Federal Officer Removal Statute. This action is
therefore REMANDED, effective immediately, to King County Superior Court.
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of
record and to CLOSE this case.
Dated this 22nd day of November, 2017.
William M. McCool
MINUTE ORDER - 2
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?