{"id":467,"date":"2026-01-13T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-13T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=467"},"modified":"2026-01-13T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-13T12:00:00","slug":"nelson-textron-cd-cal-product-liability-removal-section-1445c-workers-compensation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=467","title":{"rendered":"Nelson v. Textron \u2014 C.D. Cal. Holds Worker\u2019s Tort Claims Against Equipment Maker Are Removable Despite Workers\u2019-Comp Bar"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Theodore Nelson v. Textron Ground Support Equipment, Inc.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Central District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-13<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
2:25-cv-09961-JFW<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Removal, 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1445(c), workers\u2019 compensation bar, product liability, diversity jurisdiction<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Theodore Nelson worked as a ramp agent at Los Angeles International Airport. In September 2023, his hand was caught between the unguarded conveyor belt and the tension pulley of a Tug 660 belt loader, causing severe lacerations and a \u201cdegloving\u201d injury that required surgery at UCLA Medical Center. He sued the equipment manufacturer Textron, its predecessor Tug Technologies, and two ground-handling companies, AGI Ground and AGI Cargo, in Los Angeles County Superior Court for strict and negligent product liability and negligence.<\/p>\n

Textron removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction \u2014 the rule that lets defendants move a state-court case to federal court when the parties are from different states and more than $75,000 is at stake. Nelson did not contest diversity. Instead, he moved to remand under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1445(c), a special statute that bars removal of cases \u201carising under the workmen\u2019s compensation laws\u201d of a state. He argued his claims arose under California workers\u2019 compensation law because the AGI defendants planned to assert the workers\u2019-compensation exclusivity rule as a defense.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court denied remand and kept the case in federal court. It explained that Section 1445(c) applies the same \u201carising under\u201d test used in 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1331 (the federal-question statute): a claim arises under workers\u2019 compensation law only if the workers\u2019 compensation statute either creates the cause of action or supplies a necessary element of the claim.<\/p>\n

Nelson\u2019s causes of action \u2014 strict product liability, negligent product liability, and ordinary negligence \u2014 sound in California common-law tort, not workers\u2019 compensation. To prevail, he must prove the elements of those tort claims, none of which depend on California\u2019s workers\u2019 compensation framework. Other district courts in California, including in Lee v. Terex and Ramos v. Crown Equipment, have reached the same conclusion in analogous workplace-injury cases.<\/p>\n

The court rejected Nelson\u2019s argument that the AGI defendants might raise the workers\u2019-compensation exclusivity bar as an affirmative defense. Federal jurisdiction is determined by the well-pleaded complaint \u2014 the plaintiff\u2019s claims \u2014 not by anticipated defenses. Nelson cited no authority treating the workers\u2019-compensation defense differently from any other affirmative defense for jurisdictional purposes.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n