Save the Suitors: Can Defendants Force Plaintiffs Into Federal Court to Circumvent Common Law Remedies?

Save the Suitors: Can Defendants Force Plaintiffs Into Federal Court to Circumvent Common Law Remedies?

By: Adam Deniger

Edited by: Molly MacKenzie

Kentucky v. Altany (In re Foss Mar. Co.), No. 5:12-CV-00021-TBR, 2014 WL 2930860 (W.D. Ky. June 27, 2014); Figueroa v. Marine Insp. Servs., LLC, No. 2:14-CV-140, 2014 WL 2958597 (S.D. Tex.July 1, 2014).The central issue in both the Altany and Figueroa cases concerned the removal of claims that are maritime in nature from state court to federal court. More specifically, these cases involved claims that could have been filed in federal court based on the district courts’ original maritime jurisdiction, but were instead filed in state court allowing the plaintiffs to seek common law remedies, namely a trial by jury. The issue has arisen in several district courts in several circuits in light of the amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (b). In Altany, the lawsuit concerned a vessel colliding with a bridge at night. The vessel operator claimed that the bridge was insufficiently lit, while the State of Kentucky filed suit seeking repair costs for the bridge. The State filed suit in state court seeking a jury trial. The vessel operator in turn moved to remove the case to federal court. In Figueroa, the plaintiff was injured while working on a vessel in dry dock. The plaintiff filed suit in state court alleging negligence and also sought a jury trial. The Figueroa defendants also responded by removing the case to federal court. In both cases, the defendants removed the cases to federal court citing the district courts’ original jurisdiction over admiralty claims.Both the Altany and Figueroa courts cited 28 U.S.C. § 1333 in their decisions, which states that district courts shall have original jurisdiction exclusive of the courts of the States of any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled. This “saving to suitors” clause (hereinafter “Savings Clause”) allows plaintiffs to file claims that are maritime in nature in state court when seeking traditional common law remedies that are not provided in federal court, such as the jury trials sought by plaintiffs in both of these cases. The Altany court pointed to the concurrent jurisdiction of the state and the federal courts concerning admiralty claims and stated that it has long been undisputed that general maritime claims brought in state court under the Savings Clause were not removable without an independent basis of federal subject matter jurisdiction. The Figueroa court also acknowledged that in order to remove an admiralty claim brought in state court under the Savings Clause, there must be an independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, such as federal question or diversity.The defendant in Altany pointed to the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011 (FCJVCA) and claimed that the revision of the Removal Statute now does not require an independent basis to remove an admiralty claim to federal court. District courts have differed in their interpretation of the FCJVCA. Both the Altany and Figueroa courts believed that the Act did not change the Removal Statute and that an independent basis for removal is still required. The Altany court looked to the Savings Clause and claimed that without the requirement for an independent basis, defendants would be able to remove cases at will and prevent plaintiffs from seeking relief in the common law. The court in Figueroa emphasized that the Savings Clause does not prevent removal and that cases can still be removed if a federal question or diversity of citizenship exists. When cases are removed for this reason, plaintiffs are still entitled to seek common law remedies such as jury trials. The Altany court examined the legislative history of the FCJVCA to determine whether or not Congress intended to alter the removability of maritime claims. After examining the legislative history, the court felt that Congress had no intention of modifying the removability of maritime claims because there was no clear and unambiguous intent to do so expressed.Both state and federal courts have traditionally been able to hear admiralty cases, as federal courts have original jurisdiction over all claims saving to suitors those cases seeking remedies notprovided for in federal court. Admiralty claims filed in state court may be removed to federal court, but plaintiffs have the right to choose a given forum in order to seek the relief that will be most beneficial to them. This is still the case today, and in order to force claims into federal court, defendants must establish an independent basis for federal jurisdiction; defendants thus cannot simply compel into federal court any claim having a mere trace of admiralty law involved.