The Savings to Suitors Clause Prohibits Removal of Maritime Cases Based Solely on Maritime Jurisdiction

The Savings to Suitors Clause Prohibits Removal of Maritime Cases Based Solely on Maritime Jurisdiction

By: Sarah Thompson

Edited by: Tiffany Morales

Cormier v. Chet Morrison Contrs., LLC, 2015 WL 507513, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14325 (S.D. Tx., Feb. 6, 2015).Nathan Cormier, the plaintiff in this case, was working aboard the vessel INFLUENCE when he sustained serious injuries during the course of his work, necessitating surgery and other medical treatment for severe bodily damage. Cormier filed suit under general maritime law and the Jones Act, alleging negligence in the supervision of the crew, maintenance of equipment, and related duties.Defendant, Apache Corp., with the approval of the co-defendants, timely removed the case to federal court stating only one ground for removal, that Plaintiff’s general maritime claims fell within the scope of the removal statute, 29 U.S.C. §1441(a). Additionally, Apache Corp. submitted documents asserting that Cormier fraudulently pleaded seaman status under the Jones Act.Cormier filed a Motion to Remand seeking to return the case to state court based on the Saving to Suitors clause, 28 U.S.C. §1333. In response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, Apache Corp. asserted that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”) created federal question jurisdiction, as the record had established that the incident occurred on a platform affixed to the Outer Continental Shelf. Cormier challenged this use of federal jurisdiction by virtue of the fact that Apache Corp. failed to raise the OCSLA claim in the Notice of Removal and had therefore waived that claim.While it would have been possible for Apache Corp. to remove this case under an OCSLA claim, as a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, Apache’s failure to mention OCSLA in its Notice of Removal precluded such removal. Apache attempted to amend the Notice of Removal to include the OCSLA claim; but the District Court held that the amendment came too late, stating “[i]n most circumstances, defendants may not add completely new grounds for removal or furnishing missing allegations, even if the court rejects the first proffered basis of removal.”In summation, the Saving to Suitors clause precludes removal of maritime cases absent an independent basis of federal jurisdiction such as federal question or diversity jurisdiction. A claim under OCSLA however, is expressly vested to the jurisdiction of the United States District Courts. However, the Plaintiff did not raise an OCSLA claim and the defendant did not mention OCSLA as a basis for removal in the Notice of Removal. Therefore, the case was remanded back to state court. As the District Court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, it did not consider Apache Corp.’s argument that Mr. Cormier’s Jones Act claim was fraudulently pleaded.