How far inland does OCSLA jurisdiction extend?

How far inland does OCSLA jurisdiction extend?

By: Justin Warner

Edited by: Molly MacKenzie

Ronquille v. Aminoil, Inc., 2014 WL 4387337; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123224 (E.D. La. Sept. 4, 2014).

Ronquille v. Aminoil, Inc. was a recent case in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana that arose from a Plaintiff seeking damages for exposure to asbestos while working at a marine terminal in Venice, Louisiana. The Defendant, Shell Oil Company, argued federal question jurisdiction existed pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), and removed the suit from state to federal court. Addressing a Motion to Remand, the Court was faced with having to determine whether operations at the terminal in Venice invoked OCSLA jurisdiction, providing the Defendant with the right to remove.The Plaintiff’s arguments where that 1) the Defendant's removal was not timely, and 2) that even if the Defendant's removal was timely, the case was not properly removed because the Court lacked jurisdiction. In regards to the Plaintiff's claim that Shell's removal was not timely, the Court rejected that argument by finding the Plaintiff's petition was not sufficient enough to put Shell on notice that asbestos exposure had arisen out of activities directly related to Shell's Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) operations, and that the time limit required for removal is only triggered when an allegation in the initial pleading affirmatively reveals the basis of federal jurisdiction. Here, the Court found that the use of the language "platforms" did not specifically refer to Shell's OCS operations, nor was the OCS connection obvious from the usage of the term. Therefore, the Court found that Shell's removal was timely because they had removed within 30 days of the Plaintiff’s deposition during which Shell’s OCS operations were expressly referenced.In regard to the Plaintiff's argument that the case should be remanded for lack of jurisdiction, the Court found that despite the fact that the Plaintiff was not physically employed on the OCS itself, his work regarding and in support of the OCS at the Venice Land Base provided a sufficient connection to the operation on the OCS. The Court said this connection satisfied the "but-for" test set forth by the Fifth Circuit in determining if a cause of action arises under OCSLA. This test looks to 1) whether the activities that caused the injuries constituted an operation conducted on the outer continental shelf that involved the exploration and production of minerals, and 2) whether the case arises out of or in connection with the operation. Here, at least part of the work, though performed on land, arose out of or in connection with the offshore operations of Shell, namely, the unloading and loading of barges, other boats, and trucks that transported equipment and pipes from OCS platforms. The Plaintiff provided direct support for the offshore operations including drilling on the shelf.

The Court also determined pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b) that its Order and Reasons involved a “controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation,” so the Court granted the parties 10 days to file an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.