Proving Jurisdiction and Proper Removal Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

Proving Jurisdiction and Proper Removal Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

By: Emily Hall

Edited by: Tiffany Morales

Perise v. Eni Petroleum, U.S. L.L.C., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140372; 2014 WL 4929239 (M.D. La. Oct. 2014).In January 2014, Plaintiff Michael Ryan Perise filed suit in the 19th Judicial District Court against Eni Petroleum and several other Defendants claiming he was injured when a crane operator was moving equipment from a vessel onto a platform. Perise alleged gross negligence for failing to provide a safe work place, properly trained employees, and adequate equipment, and requested a jury trial.In February, Defendants removed the case to federal court on two grounds for subject matter jurisdiction – admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 and federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”), 43 U.S.C. §§ 1331-56. Plaintiff then moved to remand the suit back to state court claiming removal was improper because his claims fall under general maritime law, not OCSLA, and that general maritime claims cannot be independently removed due to the “saving to suitors” clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1333.Plaintiff asserted that he was on the stern deck of the vessel when he was injured and, as such, general maritime law applies. He further contends that the “saving to suitors” clause precludes removal of general maritime claims when there is no other basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.Defendants focus on removal for federal question under OCSLA in their removal. They claim that even if Plaintiff’s claims are general maritime claims as opposed to federal law or Louisiana law, the choice of law issue does not defeat jurisdiction under OCSLA. They support this claim factually by stating that the platform involved in Plaintiff’s injury is permanently attached to the seabed of the outer continental shelf (OCS) and, at the time of the accident, was producing mineral as contemplated by OCSLA.The court found that removal was proper. The Defendants satisfied their burden of proving that but-for their operations on the OCS and the type of mineral exploration they were conducting, Plaintiff would not have been injured. The facts – that the platform identified by the Defendants is the one involved and it is located on the OCS – are uncontested. Plaintiff’s assertion that his general maritime claims preclude OCSLA jurisdiction misstate the law; removal is still possible.The court did not address the admiralty jurisdiction claim as it had already established jurisdiction under OCSLA.