275 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 2001), 00-41341, Miller v Diamond Shamrock
|Citation:||275 F.3d 414|
|Party Name:||RODNEY A. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DIAMOND SHAMROCK CO.; DIAMOND SHAMROCK CHEMICAL COMPANY, also known as Occidental Chemical Corporation; DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY; MONSANTO COMPANY; UNIROYAL, INC.; Page 415 HERCULES, INC.; THOMPSON-HAYWARD CHEMICAL COMPANY, also known as Thompson Chemicals; T. H. AGRICULTURAL & NUTRITION, INC., Defendants-App|
|Case Date:||October 30, 2001|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
REYNALDO G. GARZA, Circuit Judge:
This case is yet another episode in the great Agent Orange saga. In this appeal, we review the district court's decision to grant the defendants-appellees' motion for summary judgment where the decision was based exclusively on the military contractor defense. We also review the district court's decision to deny the plaintiffs-appellants' motion to remand the case to state court. Because we can find no error in the court's decisions, we affirm both rulings.
The defendants are seven chemical companies, each of which entered into contracts with the United States during the 1960s to provide the government with "Agent Orange," a herbicide used as a defoliant by the military in Vietnam. Agent Orange is an equal mix of 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid ("2,4-D") and 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic Acid ("2,4,5-T"). Agent Orange contains varying amounts of a toxic substance known as 2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ("dioxin").1 Dioxin has been linked to various
maladies such as liver cancer and chloracne.
The plaintiffs are civilians, some of whom worked at the Corpus Christi Army Depot in Corpus Christi, Texas, at various times over the past 40 years. These workers claim they were exposed to Agent Orange while working on aircraft that used the defoliant in Vietnam. The other plaintiffs are the workers' spouses and children. They claim that they were exposed to Agent Orange through physical contact with the workers or with the workers' clothing. The plaintiffs allege that their exposure to Agent Orange has caused various maladies and cancers.
The plaintiffs originally brought suit in state court. The defendants, however, removed the case to district court based on the Federal Officer Removal Statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The plaintiffs unsuccessfully moved to remand. The defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment based on the military contractor defense. The district court granted the motion and entered final judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs appeal both decisions.
We review the denial of a motion to remand de novo. See Medina v. Ramsey Steel Co., 238 F.3d 674, 680 (5th Cir. 2001). "This standard of review applies even where the district court makes certain findings of fact in denying the motion to remand." Winters v. Shamrock Chemical Co., 149 F.3d 387, 397 (5th Cir. 1997). Because the defendants invoked the removal jurisdiction of the district court, they bore the burden of establishing jurisdiction. See Frank v. Bear Stearns & Co., 128 F.3d 919, 921-22 (5th Cir. 1997). Because the defendants met their burden, the district court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand.
This Court has already given full treatment to the questions posed by the plaintiffs' motion to remand. Winters v. Shamrock Chemical Co. is identical to the present action in all relevant respects. 149 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. 1997), aff'g 901 F.Supp. 1195 (E.D. Tex. 1995), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1034 (1999). In Winters, the plaintiff brought suit in state court against the same defendants in the present action. She alleged that her exposure to Agent Orange while in Vietnam had caused her to develop cancer. Id. at 390. As they did the present action, the defendants in Winters removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Federal Officer Removal Statute. Id. The district court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand, and this Court affirmed. Id. at 404.
The Federal Officer Removal Statute provides in relevant part:
(a) A civil action or criminal prosecution commenced in a State court against any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:
(1) The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, sued in an official or individual capacity for any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for
the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.
28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1); see Winters, 149 F.3d at 390. In denying Winters's motion to remand, the district court found that the defendants: (1) were "persons," (2) "acting under color of federal authority" when committing the acts that allegedly caused her injuries, and (3) had asserted a colorable federal defense. Id. at 397. As in the present action, the colorable federal defense asserted by the defendants in Winters was the military contractor defense. Id. at 400.
The plaintiffs do not dispute the legal reasoning of the Winters decision. Rather, they attempt to distinguish it. The plaintiffs argue that Winters was based on the erroneous assumption that the mixing of 2, 4-D and 2, 4, 5-T created a product more toxic than either of the components individually. The plaintiffs then offer proof that only 2, 4, 5-T contains dioxin, so the addition of 2, 4-D actually creates a less toxic product. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants were not acting under the color of federal authority when they made 2, 4, 5-T, which contains dioxin. Thus, as the plaintiff's argument follows, there was no causal connection between the defendants' actions that gave rise to this suit--making 2, 4, 5-T--and the defendants's actions that were under the direction of the federal government--mixing 2, 4, 5-T and 2, 4-D to make Agent Orange.
The argument fails on both its premise and its conclusion. The determination that the defendants in...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP