Jalili v. 3M Company

Background

The opinion addresses three related cases brought by John Jalili, Oral Janice, and Kevin Kane against 3M Company and Aearo Technologies LLC. The plaintiffs, who were private military contractors, alleged that they used Combat Arms Earplugs, Version 2, while working for the military and that 3M failed to provide adequate instructions and warnings about properly wearing them. They alleged hearing loss and/or tinnitus as a result.

The plaintiffs filed product-liability claims in Minnesota state court. 3M removed the cases to federal court, asserting three grounds for federal jurisdiction: the federal-contractor defense under the Federal Officer Removal Statute, a combatant-activities theory under that statute, and the federal-enclave doctrine. The plaintiffs moved to remand, meaning they asked the federal court to return the cases to state court.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the Federal Officer Removal Statute, which can allow a defendant to remove a case involving state-law claims when the defendant plausibly alleges that it acted under a federal officer’s direction and has a plausible federal defense. The defendant does not have to prove that the defense will ultimately succeed at the removal stage.

The court held that 3M was barred from relying on its combatant-activities and federal-enclave arguments because the court had already rejected identical jurisdictional arguments in related cases and had entered final judgments remanding those cases. The court applied issue preclusion, a rule that prevents parties from relitigating an issue of law or fact that was already decided in a valid, final judgment and was necessary to that judgment.

The court then considered whether 3M had plausibly raised a federal-contractor defense. The Eighth Circuit had held that, in this earplug litigation, 3M could properly raise that defense when it plausibly alleged that a plaintiff received the earplugs from the military.

Janice admitted that he received some Combat Arms Earplugs from the Army and some through private suppliers. Because his injuries could have been caused or worsened by the military-issued earplugs, the court found that 3M had raised a plausible federal-contractor defense as to Janice.

As to Jalili and Kane, the court found that 3M had not supported its assertion that they obtained their earplugs from the military. Kane testified that he never received earplugs from the military, and Jalili stated that he received his earplugs from co-workers in a supply room. The court rejected 3M’s request to presume a military source based only on the earplugs’ packaging and concluded that 3M had not carried its burden of showing federal jurisdiction.

Order and Effect

The court granted Jalili’s motion to remand in Civil No. 22-781 and Kane’s motion to remand in Civil No. 20-1157. It denied Janice’s motion to remand in Civil No. 22-783. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly. The opinion decides where these cases would proceed; it does not decide whether the plaintiffs’ product-liability claims will ultimately succeed.