Marley v. Elliot Turbomachinery Co., Inc.
District Court, S.D. Florida
1Opinion of the Court
Amended Order Denying Motion to Remand
ADALBERTO JORDAN, District Judge.
Elliott Turbomachinery and Viad removed this action to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Pending is the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, arguing that the defendants had not sufficiently shown a federal colorable defense and a nexus between this action and their official duties. For the reasons stated below, the motion to remand [D.E. 2] is DENIED.
I. Factual Background
This action is in essence a dispute about the defendants’ ability, under their contract with the Navy, to warn Mr. Marley that unprotected…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Boyle v. United Technologies Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Willingham v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Watson v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Mesa v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Jefferson County v. AckerSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Hagen v. Benjamin Foster Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2010
- Corley v. Long-Lewis, Inc.District Court, N.D. Alabama · 2010
- Batchelor v. American Optical Corp.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2016
- Sheridan Healthcorp, Inc. v. Aetna Health Inc.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2016
- Einhorn v. CarePlus Health Plans, Inc.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2014
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.