Asbestos Company Tries to Sue Judge That Ruled Against them in Mesothelioma Case

When the family of a longshoreman who died of mesothelioma filed a lawsuit against Ports America Gulfport, the company did what many asbestos defendants do: they filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to have the case against them dismissed. But when the state court judge in the case denied their request, as also frequently happens, the asbestos company did something remarkable: its attorneys filed a lawsuit against the judge in federal court.

Defendants Claims Federal Law Protects Them Against Mesothelioma Claims

In filing their initial petition against liability for the man’s mesothelioma death, Ports America Gulfport petitioned Louisiana state’s Judge Rachael Johnson to dismiss the case against them. They pointed to the Longshore Harbor Workers Compensation Act, which they argued protected them against state tort claims. Judge Johnson ruled against them and five days later they filed suit against her and sought declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the state proceedings, as well as any potential enforcement of a final judgment against them.

In hearing their pleading, U.S. District Judge Sarah S. Vance denied the company’s request. She pointed out that injunctive relief could only be granted under one of two circumstances: either that the asbestos company could show that they had a good chance of winning their case on its merits or that they could show that they would suffer irreparable damage if the case were not enjoined. She decided that neither was the case.

Judge Predicts Damage to the Legal System if Mesothelioma Defendant’s Argument Were to be Accepted

Moving beyond the specific issues surrounding the mesothelioma lawsuit, Judge Vance noted that allowing the asbestos company to pursue their argument and having the federal court intervene in a state case could cause chaos in the litigation system. She wrote that “having cases and controversies disposed of in an orderly fashion, using the designated motions and appeals processes of the appropriate judicial system” was essential and that the company’s request would set precedent for “an increase in unpredictable and disorderly litigation practice, introducing thorny legal issues – jurisdictional and otherwise – into even the most garden-variety cases.”