Parish Suit for Damages to Wet Lands Remanded
Parish Suit for Damages to Wet Lands Remanded
No Federal Jurisdiction
By: Olga Fofanova
Edited By: Brooke E. Michiels
Parish v. Equitable Petroleum Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64559 (E.D. La., May 18, 2015)
Jefferson Parish filed a lawsuit in the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson against thirteen defendants for damage to land and water located in Jefferson Parish allegedly caused by violations of permits issued under CZM laws.Defendants subsequently removed the case to federal court alleging three bases for federal subject-matter jurisdiction: (1) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, (2) the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”), and (3) general maritime law. The plaintiff responded with a motion to remand on several bases: (1) no diversity existed because at least one defendant is a citizen of Louisiana, (2) that the conduct occurred in Jefferson Parish, and (3) that all of the plaintiff’s claims were state-law based.Defendants first argued that the removal was proper despite the presence of non-diverse defendants due to the absence of community of interest between diverse and nondiverse defendants. In particular, they argued that the plaintiff’s claim against diverse defendants had no rational connection to the claim against non-diverse ones, and was so egregious that it amounted to fraudulent joiner.The court held that non-diverse parties were not joined fraudulently. The court found that community of interest was present between all of the thirteen defendants because the plaintiff cumulated its claims based on the geographical and historical similarities between the disputed permits and activities, as well as the cumulative impact of the alleged permit violations.Defendants further argued federal jurisdiction existed under OCSLA. They claimed that although none of the alleged permit violations occurred on the Outer Continental Shelf (‘OCS’ herein), the complained-of activities included the construction and maintenance of infrastructure that directly supports OCS operations.The court looked at the two-prong test established in DEEPWATER HORIZON. The test requires determining a connection between a case and an operation only after it has established that the activities that cause the injury constituted an operation on the OCS. The court found that defendants failed to satisfy the first prong because the activities that caused the injury occurred in Jefferson Parish.Defendants finally argued that they properly removed the case under federal maritime law because Congress’ 2011 amendment to the removal statute, 20 U.S.C. §1441, eliminates the historical prohibition on removing the savings clause to federal court.The court disagreed and held that Congress’ 2011 amendment did not alter the long-standing rule that common law maritime claims are not removable absent an independed basis for asserting federal jurisdiction. First, Congress has given no indication that it intended to make fundamental changes to the law governing removal of admiralty matters. Second, the historic prohibition on removing common-law maritime claims is grounded in the savings-to-suitors clause, not Section 1441.In summary, the court held it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims under diversity jurisdiction, OCSLA, or maritime law, and granted plaintiff’s motion to remand.
