Bennett v. MIS Corp.
Bennett v....(U.S. 6th Cir., Civil Procedure, Contracts, Government Contracts, Government Law, Injury And Tort Law) In air traffic controllers’ suit alleging personal injuries based on their exposure to toxic mold at the airport, district court’s order dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the first mold remediation firm’s section 1442(a)(1) removal was proper and the district court therefore possessed subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims; 2) the Fultz rule of law forecloses plaintiffs’ claims against the consulting defendants as they did not assume the FAA’s duty to provide a reasonably safe working environment when the FAA hired them to provide consulting services; 3) district court erred by dismissing Coach as it’s use of an allegedly unapproved biocide gave rise to a duty under Michigan law to foreseeable persons that was “separate and distinct” from its contract with the FAA; and 4) district court did not err when it denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint with respect to their proposed common law fraud claim as futile.
