Recent Removal Cases

Recent Removal Cases

By: Forrest Guedry

Two recent United States District Court cases examined removal under general maritime law. In Barry v. Shell Oil Co., No. 13-6133, U.S. District Court, E.D. of Louisiana (Feb. 25, 2014) and Coronel v. Victory, No. C13-2304JLR, U.S. District Court, W.D. of Washington (Feb. 28, 2014), the courts reached the same conclusion by granting the respective plaintiffs’ motion to remand their case back to state court.

In both cases, the plaintiffs sustained injuries while working on the defendants’ vessels. Following their injuries, the plaintiffs filed suit in state court alleging claims under general maritime law. Each defendant responded by filing for removal. The defendants argued that general maritime claims can be removed because district courts have original jurisdiction over any civil case based on 28 U.S.C. § 1333. However, this claim relies on the removal statute found at 28 U.S.C. § 1441 before it was amended in 2011.

Before § 1441 was amended, part (b) of that section provided that district courts had original jurisdiction of all civil actions “arising under the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States” and “any other such action.” Therefore, defendants argued that district courts had original jurisdiction over general maritime claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Nevertheless, prior to §1441’s amendment, courts consistently found that general maritime claims filed in state court could only be removed if diversity requirements were met.

Thus, the amendment to § 1441(b) clarifies the statute by expressly stating that only cases based on diversity jurisdiction could be removed from state court, as opposed to the previous version that allowed for debate to remove a larger variety of cases. Still, some circuit courts have found disputes over federal maritime statutes to provide a basis for the district court’s original jurisdiction through federal question.

Maritime cases that are brought in state court have been exempt from removal because of the savings-to-suitors clause. As mentioned above, 28 U.S.C. § 1333 grants district courts original jurisdiction in admiralty and maritime actions. The statute further “saves to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.” This privilege, known as the savings-to-suitors clause, essentially gives the maritime plaintiff three options in bringing their claim: (1) in federal court under admiralty jurisdiction, (2) on the law side of federal court with an independent ground of jurisdiction (such as diversity of citizenship or federal question), or (3) in state court. This allows the plaintiffs to avail themselves of remedies available at common law in a maritime context.The Fifth Circuit has stated that, “the savings-to-suitors clause does no more than preserve the right of maritime suitors to pursue non-maritime remedies. [The clause] does not guarantee them a nonfederal forum, or limit the right of defendants to remove such actions to federal court where there exists some basis for federal jurisdiction other than admiralty [§1333].”

Of the many remedies provided in common law that is not provided as a maritime remedy, the most significant is the right to a jury trial. In Barry v. Shell Oil Co., the plaintiff’s request for a jury could not be granted in federal court because the parties were not diverse, nor was any federal question implicated. Thus, the plaintiff’s motion for remand

was granted.

Similarly, in Coronel v. Victory, because the plaintiff brought his general maritime claims to state court and could not have brought them on the law side of federal court originally in the absence of diversity or federal question, removal could not be granted. The Coronel court also rejected the defendant’s argument that the claim could be removed to the admiralty side of federal court under §1333; but again, this would negate the savings-to-suitors clause that gives the plaintiffs the ability to seek remedies at common law.

In each case, the defendant’s request for removal was only based on the court’s admiralty jurisdiction. Thus, if removal were allowed the plaintiffs would be deprived of their right to pursue a jury trial. This would effectively render the savings-to-suitors clause meaningless because the defendant would always claim § 1333 as a basis for the district court’s original jurisdiction of general maritime claims. Further, the courts have made clear that simply because an action implicates general maritime law it will not suffice to establish federal question jurisdiction.Accordingly, the savings-to-suitors clause acts a restriction to the removal statute, §1441, that prevents removal of general maritime claims

brought in state court. For those reasons, both plaintiffs’ motion to remand their general maritime claims back to the state courts were granted.

These two cases seem to be at odds with a previous magistrate opinion that was adopted by Judge James Brady of the Middle District of Louisiana in Bridges v. Phillips.