District Court Denies Remand but Severs Jones Act Claims

By David Wagner

In Harrold v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc., No. 13-762-JJB-SCR, the plaintiff, Randall Harrold brought an action for damages under the Jones Act in state court against defendants, Aerotek, Inc., Weeks Marine, Inc., and Southern Crane & Hydraulics L.L.C. (SCH).  The plaintiff was hired by Aerotek to work on a barge owned by Weeks. While on the barge, plaintiff was injured by an SCH employee.Defendants motioned to remove the case on the basis of the court’s original jurisdiction over general maritime claims. Specifically, SCH argued that the case was removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1445 because plaintiff only sued SCH under a general negligence claim and the only Jones Act claims were alleged against Aerotek and Weeks.Plaintiff countered by arguing that his Jones Act seaman status made the whole case was non-removable because there were no claims that were “separate and independent” over which the court could exercise federal jurisdiction.The issue before the court was “whether the current version of 28 U.S.C. § 1441 affects the removability of general maritime claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1333.”Prior courts have held that the pre-amendment version of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) allowed for removal of civil actions that arose under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the U.S. Importantly, courts have held that general maritime claims did not fall within this definition as removable claims. Thus, courts found that general maritime claims were not removable because they were expressly prohibited by an “Act of Congress” under  § 1441(a).The amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) eliminated the phrase ‘arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the U.S.’ Thus, removing the ‘Act of Congress’ that had previously been interpreted to exclude general maritime claims from being removed to federal court.  However, because the Fifth Circuit has not ruled on the new statutory language, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the plaintiff’s motion to remand be denied.In the subsequent proceeding, Harrold v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc., No. 13-762-JJB-SCR, decided on February 20, 2014, the Judge found that the plaintiff’s motion for remand should be granted in part and denied in part.  The court affirmed and adopted the Magistrate’s report and recommendation, but pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)(2), the Jones Act claims asserted against Weeks and Aerotek were severed and remanded to the 19th Judicial District Court of Baton Rouge.