Dist.Ct. erred in sua sponte remanding to state court plaintiff’s personal injury action alleging that plaintiff was exposed to asbestos fibers emanating from certain products manufactured by defendant, where defendant had removed said action to federal court under federal officer removal provisions under 28 USC section 1442(a). Defendant alleged sufficient facts to support federal officer removal, since defendant asserted that it was involved in assembly of heavy bomber aircrafts that were built under defendant’s contract with U.S. govt. under circumstances where govt. controlled design and development of said aircraft and required strict adherence to its detailed specifications. Moreover, defendant alleged sufficient facts in its notice of removal to support its claim that it was entitled to government contractor defense. Ct. further found that: (1) Dist.Ct. erred in stating that defendant was required to submit evidence to support its claims set forth in its notice of removal; and (2) defendant sufficiently alleged that it was “acting under” U.S, its agencies, or its officers by stating that it was assisting or carrying out duties of U.S. Air Force.
