Federal-officer removal; 28 USC § 1442(a)(1); Government contractor defense; Boyle v United Techs Corp; Failure-to-warn claims; Tate v Boeing Helicopters; Subject-matter jurisdiction; Amended complaint; Royal Canin USA, Inc v Wullschleger; Remand; § 1447(c); Colorable federal defense; Military service asbestos exposure disclaimer; Claims arising from federal conduct; Chevron USA Inc v Plaquemines Parish; “Indivisible” federal conduct; Ohio ex rel Yost v Ascent Health Servs, LLC; Maine v 3M Co, Inc; Apportionment

The court held that defendant-GE could not maintain federal-officer jurisdiction after plaintiff-Horton amended the complaint to disclaim all asbestos-exposure claims arising from the decedent’s Navy service, leaving GE without a colorable federal government-contractor defense. Horton sued GE and others in Kentucky state court for Kentucky-law asbestos claims involving the decedent’s civilian exposure. GE removed under § 1442(a) based on alleged asbestos exposure from Navy turbines supplied to a ship on which the decedent served. The district court granted Horton’s remand motion after she filed an amended complaint expressly waiving claims arising from Navy service. On appeal, the court first held that the district court properly considered the amended complaint because, under Royal Canin, jurisdiction “follows from the amended complaint,” and amended pleadings may be “‘jurisdiction-changing events.’” The court next held that GE lacked a colorable federal contractor defense to claims arising from its provision of the turbines because Horton had “raised no such claims[,]” and GE could not be subjected to tort liability associated with government procurement work when the operative complaint limited the challenged conduct to non-federal business. It rejected GE’s argument that military exposure still “relate[d] to” the remaining claims because the statute requires a close connection between the “challenged conduct” and federal acts, not merely an asserted connection between federal acts and the decedent’s injury. The court also distinguished cases involving indivisible federal and non-federal conduct, reasoning that asbestos exposure at different places and times is not indivisible and that ordinary apportionment questions can be managed by state courts. Affirmed.