No Jury Trial in Counterclaim in Breach of Contract Suit Despite OSCLA Jurisdiction

Ensco Offshore, LLC v. Cantium, LLC, 2024 WL 1801855; 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75268 * (E.D. La. April 25, 2024; Ashe, J.).

            Ensco Offshore, LLC (Ensco) is a drilling contractor which entered into an agreement with Cantium, LLC (Cantium) an operator of offshore oil and gas platforms.[1] Ensco sued Cantium in federal court alleging Cantium breached the contract in failing to pay invoices as well as claims of quantum meruit and promissory estoppel.[2] The suit alleged federal question jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act as well as admiralty jurisdiction without an express Rule 9(h) designation but also with no request for trial by jury.[3]

            Cantium answered and filed a counterclaim with its allegation of breach of contract and a jury demand.[4] Ensco answered and later amended its complaint with a Rule 9(h) designation.[5] Judge Ashe noted in footnote 10 that this later designation is irrelevant to the pending motion as it was filed after Cantium answered and counterclaimed.[6]

            Ensco filed a Motion to Strike the Jury demand on the basis that the claim is within the admiralty jurisdiction of the court.[7] In its Complaint, Ensco alleged that the contract is a maritime contract as it involves the services of a jack-up rig, a vessel, which plays a substantial role in the fulfillment of the contract.[8] This assertion alone is sufficient to express the election of the claimant to proceed within the court’s admiralty jurisdiction despite the allegation of alternative federal jurisdiction and despite the failure to reference Rule 9(h).[9] The Motion to Strike the Jury was granted.

[1] The contract was for a jack-up drilling rig, a vessel; See Ensco Offshore, 2024 WL 1801855, n.10.

[2] Ensco Offshore, 2024 WL 1801855 at *1.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id. at n. 10.

[7] Id.

[8] Id. at *3.

[9] Id. at *4; The court cites Luera v. M/V Alberta, 635 F.3d 181, 189 (5th Cir. 2011) for support: “’[I]n this circuit a plaintiff who asserts admiralty jurisdiction as a basis for the court's subject matter jurisdiction over a claim has automatically elected under Rule 9(h) to proceed under the admiralty rules, even if she states that her claim is also cognizable under diversity or some other basis of federal subject matter jurisdiction.” In Luera, the claimant sued vessels in rem as well as the owners and operators in personam and sought a jury trial. The Fifth Circuit, relying on Fitzgerald v. United States Lines Co., 374 U.S. 16 (1963), affirmed the district court which granted the plaintiff a jury trial.