Another Federal Court Remands Maritime Claim: Amendment to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441 Not a Basis for Removal

Another Federal Court Remands Maritime Claim: Amendment to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441 Not a Basis for Removal

By: Angela Gennaro

Edited by: Tiffany Morales

Cassidy v. Murray, 2014 WL 3723877, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100761 (D. Md. 2014)

On June 17, 2012, Susan Cassidy and John Bronson suffered injuries when the stern of the vessel they were operating was struck by the bow of Pamela Murray’s vessel on the Patapsco River in Maryland. Cassidy and Bronson sued Murray in the Circuit Court for the City of Baltimore, alleging, among other theories, negligence. Shortly thereafter, Murray removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Cassidy then filed a Motion to Remand.The issue before the court was whether the removal to federal court was appropriate. First, Murray argued that removal was proper because 28 U.S.C § 1333 grants the district court original jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime cases. The Court rejected this argument based on the “saving to suitors” clause which preserves a maritime suitor’s choice to pursue common-law remedies in state court. Effectively, the “saving to suitors” clause has preserved the concurrent jurisdiction of state and federal courts over general maritime claims and barred removal of such claims with no independent jurisdictional basis.Second, Murray argued that the 2011 amendment to 28 U.S.C § 1441 allows this claim to be removed to federal court without an independent jurisdictional basis. Prior to the amendment, maritime and admiralty actions fell within the “any other civil action” language of § 1441(b) and, therefore, were only removable if the parties were diverse or another independent jurisdictional basis existed. The recent amendment deleted the “any other civil action” language which led some federal courts to hold that this permitted removal of general maritime cases without an independent jurisdictional basis and based on the original jurisdiction of the court over admiralty and maritime claims.The Court rejected this argument as well as the rationale of the federal courts that held in accordance. The Court reasoned that the decision to not require an independent jurisdictional basis disrupts decades of maritime precedent and renders the “saving to suitors” clause null and void.

Thus, without an independent jurisdictional ground for removal, the Motion to Remand was granted.