In a legal landscape filled with intricate cases, one case stands out for its complexity, involving a Plaintiff who contracted mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos at the Avondale shipyard. The Defendant in this instance sought to transfer it to federal court utilizing the “federal officer removal statute.” Regrettably, the district court commanded its return to the state court, a move that initiated a legal conflict highlighting divergent legal precedents. 

In this post, we will delve into the complex details of this case, considering its historical backdrop, contentions presented, and court ruling.


During the 1960s and 1970s, Avondale was contracted by the United States Navy for shipbuilding and revitalization operations involving extensive use of asbestos for thermal insulation purposes. Avondale contended that it bore the responsibility of adhering to government blueprints and criteria, all while being subject to federal oversight. However, a Navy ship inspector testified that safety regulations were the responsibility of Avondale’s safety department.

The Plaintiff, James Latiolais, a former Navy machinist, was exposed to asbestos during refurbishing at Avondale and later diagnosed with mesothelioma. He sued Avondale in a Louisiana state court, alleging negligence in failing to warn about asbestos hazards and provide safety equipment. Avondale removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, but the district court remanded it, citing the lack of a “causal nexus.”

Standard of Review

Before delving into the legal contentions, it is crucial to grasp the applicable standard of review. Ordinarily, directives to return a case to state jurisdiction lie beyond review boundaries unless governed by specific clauses in the U.S. Code. The district court’s choice to remand this case however can be re-evaluated through appeal channels. The evaluating tribunal is mandated to approach this matter with utter impartiality and engage in fresh deliberations or de novo review without any inclination towards returning the case.


Avondale presented three arguments in favor of officer removal. Firstly, they argued that the 2011 amendment to the removal statute expanded its scope by replacing “for any act under color of such office” with “for or relating to any act under color of such office.” Secondly, Avondale asserted that their relationship with Latiolais stemmed solely from their government contract work, satisfying the causal nexus requirement. Lastly, Avondale aimed to distinguish this case from precedents unfavorable to their position.

The 2011 amendment’s “relating to” language appeared to broaden the basis for removal, implying comprehensive coverage. However, the court’s precedent, including Bartel and Legendre, continued to apply the “causal nexus” test that predates the amendment. This test demands a defendant show a direct link between their actions under federal authority and the plaintiff’s specific injuries. While Zeringue seemed to relax the causal nexus standard, it applied only to strict liability claims and did not consider negligence-based failure-to-warn claims, which are at the heart of this case.

Avondale contended that their relationship with Latiolais was solely due to their government work, citing Supreme Court cases like Willingham. However, the court’s previous rulings, including Bartel and Legendre, maintained that the alleged negligence in failure-to-warn cases like this did not implicate federal interests, thus failing to meet the causal nexus requirement.

The Rule of Orderliness and Need for Reconsideration

Avondale argued that Bartel should be reconsidered en banc to align the court’s precedent with the statutory evolution. The 2011 amendment significantly expanded the scope of removal, and applying the old “causal nexus” standard seems inconsistent with the statute’s language.

In conclusion, the case involving Avondale, asbestos exposure, and federal officer removal illustrates the intricate legal challenges that arise in complex litigation. While the court upheld its precedent, it acknowledged the need to align its interpretations with the evolving statute and the decisions of other circuits. The battle over jurisdiction and removal will continue to be a central issue in cases like these, emphasizing the importance of statutory clarity and judicial consistency in our legal system.

What sets The Allied Outsourcing apart?

The Allied Outsourcing stands as a long-standing entity recognized for its exceptional prowess in delivering litigation-related solutions. Bolstered by an illustrious history within the realm of legal support, Allied Outsourcing has evolved into a reliable ally for legal practitioners and law firms seeking adept guidance in the orchestration of intricate litigation procedures. Their cadre of extensively proficient professionals extends a gamut of services encompassing the scrutinization of documents, legal inquiries, and case administration, thereby enabling patrons to adeptly refine their legal operations.

A hallmark attribute that sets Allied Outsourcing apart is its unwavering commitment to upholding the loftiest echelons of quality and confidentiality. Employing cutting-edge technology alongside industry-leading methodologies, they meticulously oversee every facet of litigation support. This unswerving dedication to eminence, coupled with their profound legal acumen, positions Allied Outsourcing as an invaluable asset for law practices striving to enhance their litigation processes and secure triumphant outcomes for their clientele.

Leave a Comment