Eastern District of New York Follows Majority - No Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Amendments

Eastern District of New York Follows Majority - No Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Amendments

By: Danielle Team

 Gonzalez v . Red Hook Container Terminal LLC., E.D.N.Y. 2016 WL 7322335, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173946.In 2015, the plaintiff suffered injuries while working as an employee of the defendant. The plaintiff filed suit in New York state court alleging that the defendant was negligent, reckless, and careless in failing to provide a safe work environment. The defendant removed the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1333, 1441, and 1446. The plaintiff then moved to remand the case back to state court and United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the motion. Below is a summary of those proceedings.First, the defendant argued that removal was proper because the plaintiff’s Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act claim constituted a federal question. The court noted that the availability of a defense under federal law does not alone justify removal unless all four Grable requirements are satisfied. Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005). However, in this case, the court held that not all of the Grable factors were met. Specifically, the court found that the defendant failed to show a substantial interest in litigating its claim in a federal forum. Additionally, the defendant failed to demonstrate a special need for the claim to be heard in federal court because there was no threat of disrupting the federal-state balance. Thus, the court denied removal based on federal question jurisdiction.Second, the defendant argued that removal was proper based on the 2011 amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Following the Southern District of Texas’ decision in Ryan v. Hercules Offshore, Inc. (945 F.Supp.2d 772 (S.D. Tex. 2013)) to permit removal based on admiralty jurisdiction alone, many circuits around the country have declined to follow and continue to require an independent basis for federal jurisdiction. The amended section of § 1441 provides that “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant . . . . ” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Thus, the court in Ryan found that the amended language made all admiralty cases newly removable because § 1333 vests the district courts with original jurisdiction over admiralty cases. This court disagreed, concluding that Ryan ignored the historical understanding of the “savings to suitors” clause of § 1333. The court stressed that the “savings to suitors” clause was meant to preserve concurrent jurisdiction in maritime cases and noted that there was no evidence that Congress intended such a change when it drafted the amendment to § 1441. Furthermore, the court recognized its obligation to “resolve any doubts against removability” and held that removal was not proper absent an independent basis for federal jurisdiction. See Marlin Business Bank v. Halland Companies, LLC., 18 F.Supp.3d 239, 241 (E.D. N.Y. 2014).