2011 Amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Does Not Change Non-Removability of General Maritime Claims
2011 Amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Does Not Change Non-Removability of General Maritime Claims
By: Maria Aurora P. Deguzman
Edited by: Molly MacKenzie
Gregoire v. Enter. Marine Servs., LLC., No. 14-840, 2014 WL 3866589, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108286 (E.D. La. Aug. 6, 2014).
Gregoire, a crewmember of an Enterprise-owned vessel, filed suit in state court against Enterprise and its insurer for injuries he sustained after a slip and fall accident while working aboard the vessel. He asserted claims (1) under the Jones Act, (2) under general maritime law for alleged breach of the warranty of seaworthiness, and (3) for maintenance and cure. Enterprise sought to remove the suit in its entirety to federal court. Gregoire filed a motion to remand, maintaining that the Jones Act claim joined with the general maritime law claims precluded removal of the entire case.Enterprise argued that because the Jones Act claim was joined with general maritime law claims – which are removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) because federal courts have original jurisdiction over them under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 – the Jones Act claim was removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c).Enterprise also argued that, at the least, the Jones Act claim should be severable from the general maritime claims, and the court should allow the general maritime law claims to remain in district court while the Jones Act claim was remanded to state court.
- Were Gregoire’s general maritime law claims removable?
No. Gregoire’s general maritime law claims were not removable without a separate basis (other than 28 U.S.C. § 1333) for federal jurisdiction, and Enterprise failed to offer such an independent basis. Courts have interpreted the Supreme Court’s holding in Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 (1959) as requiring a basis of federal jurisdiction independent from admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, such as diversity, in order find a general maritime law claim removable from state court.Although Section 1333 appears to grant original jurisdiction over general maritime claims to federal courts, maritime claims initiated in state court are an exception. By initiating the claim in state court, these maritime claims are “brought at common law under the saving to suitors clause.”While the savings to suitors clause guarantees a common law remedy, as opposed to guaranteeing a non-federal forum, this does not mean that maritime claims are always removable.
- Was Gregoire’s Jones Act claim removable?
No. Gregoire’s Jones Act claim was not removable because the Jones Act incorporates the Federal Employees Liability Act (“FELA”), and FELA claims are not removable, regardless of the diversity of the parties.Enterprise’s argument that the Jones Act claim would be removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c) failed because the jurisprudence establishes that “general maritime law claims do not ‘arise under’ the Constitution for purposes of federal question jurisdiction[,] nor are they removable under Section 1333 alone.”
- Was Gregoire entitled to “payment of just costs and any actual expenses… incurred as a result of the removal” under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)?
No. Gregoire was not entitled to a payment under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because Enterprise had an objectively reasonable basis for filing a motion to remove the suit. Considering that courts in the Fifth Circuit have not uniformly held general maritime claims to be non-removable under the current version of 28 U.S.C. § 1441, even under similar facts, the court found that Enterprise’s motion was not only objectively reasonable, but “strategically sound” as well.
