How The “Saving to Suitors” Clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1333 Barred Removal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441
How The “Saving to Suitors” Clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1333 Barred Removal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441
By: Nick Bergeron
Edited By: Max Schellenberg
Nassau Cnty. Bridge Auth. v. Olsen, No. 14-cv-5197, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125520, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2015)
On September 19, 2015, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the Nassau County Bridge Authority’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to remand the Plaintiff’s negligence claim to the Nassau County Supreme Court. The Plaintiff filed suit against the captain of a vessel, the owner of that vessel, and the owner of the 260-foot barge being towed by that vessel (collectively “Defendants”), which collided with the northwest fender system of the Atlantic Beach Bridge in Nassau County, New York on December 8, 2012. Originally, the Plaintiff asserted one claim of negligence seeking $850,000 in damages in the Nassau County Supreme Court. However, the Defendants timely removed the suit to federal court asserting admiralty jurisdiction. The Plaintiff filed a motion to remand to state court.The Defendants asserted federal jurisdiction alleging that (1) the Plaintiff’s negligence claim presented a federal question for the alleged failure to comply with federal drawbridge operation regulations; and (2) whether the Plaintiff’s claim was removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 based on admiralty jurisdiction.First, the court reasoned that in order for a state law claim, like negligence, to invoke federal jurisdiction, the claim must “necessarily raise a stated federal issue.” Because the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants violated a federal statute (involving general operating standards in connection with a drawbridge) as well as basic negligence, the court reasoned that the federal statute violation was not a necessary component of the Plaintiff’s claim. The court explained that because the Plaintiff could prevail on its negligence claim without resorting to a federal regulation, the claim did not “arise under” a federal question. Additionally, the court found that the Plaintiff’s case involved a violation of a federal statute as evidence of the negligence claim – a common practice in state negligence cases. As such, the court recognized that a grant of federal jurisdiction on that basis alone would create the unfortunate consequence of dramatically expanding federal jurisdiction over traditional state court claims.Next, the court addressed whether the 2011 amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 allowed removal based on admiralty jurisdiction and the potential conflict with 28 U.S.C. § 1333 – namely the “saving to suitors” clause. The Plaintiff argued that, with reference to the “saving to suitors” clause, the Plaintiff was entitled to argue its common law maritime negligence claim in state court. However, the Defendants countered that § 1441 trumps the clause and enables removal to federal court because the maritime negligence claim is within the federal court’s original jurisdiction. Pointing to legislative history, available jurisprudence, as well as the language of the 2011 amendments to § 1441, the court stated that there is no clear indication that the meaning of the “saving to suitors” clause was to be changed in favor of allowing removal. The invocation of the clause resulting from the Plaintiff’s original commencement of its negligence claim in state court created a barrier to removal to federal court. Although the Plaintiff’s claims were sounding in admiralty, they were not available for removal under § 1441.Limitation Actions filed by the owners of the vessels remain pending in the federal district court. See: In re: Henry Marine Serv. 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131477 (E.D. N.Y. Sept. 29, 2015).
