Pappagallo v. Redco Corp.
For forty years, Ralph Pappagallo worked in shipyards in Pennsylvania, where he was exposed to various asbestos-containing products. In 2022, Mr. Pappagallo was diagnosed with lung cancer caused by his exposure to asbestos. After he died from that illness in 2022, his survivors brought a lawsuit in Pennsylvania state court against 46 manufacturers and distributors of asbestos and asbestos-containing products.
Two years after he filed suit, one of the defendants, John Crane International (JCI), removed the case to federal court, invoking the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1). JCI asserted that it had a federal contractor defense based on testimony from one of Mr. Pappagallo’s former co-workers that, JCI argued, suggested that Mr. Pappagallo may have worked on a few military ships over the course of his lengthy career and, in that work, may have been exposed to asbestos-containing products that JCI designed for the military.
After the case was removed to federal court, the Pappagallos expressly waived any claims arising out of exposures that may have occurred while Mr. Pappagallo was working on military vessels. Rejecting arguments raised by JCI and other defendants, the district court remanded the case, concluding that the case had no claims for or relating to an act under color of federal office, as would be necessary for federal-officer removal jurisdiction.
JCI and two other defendants appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and sought a stay from that court pending appeal—arguing that remand orders that are appealed are automatically stayed pending the resolution of all appeals. Public Citizen serves as co-counsel for the Pappagallos on appeal. We filed a brief opposing the stay. The court held, though, that because JCI appealed before the district court mailed the remand order to the state court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue the order and thus no stay was necessary.
On the merits of the appeal, our brief on behalf of the Pappagallos explains that the district court correctly remanded the case because the Pappagallos are not suing over any acts that JCI took in connection with its relationship to the federal government. The brief also explains that JCI has no colorable federal defense to the Pappagallos’ claims and that JCI’s argument about the inability to apportion harm rests on state law. Finally, the brief rebuts the companies’ argument that the court was required to exercise admiralty jurisdiction over the case.