No Situs Requirement for Removal Under OSCLA: Federal District Court Attempts to Clarify Fifth Circuit Split

Mannifield v. Talos Energy, LLC, No. 22-1831, 2023 WL 1965996, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23627 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2023).

Author: Nicholas Hart

           In Mannifield v. Talos Energy, LLC, the Southern District of Texas provided clarification on the situs requirement for removal of a case under OCSLA.[1] In this case, a Plaintiff brought suit against Defendants in Texas state court for negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence after sustaining injuries aboard Defendants’ vessel, the M/V Helix Producer I.[2] The Plaintiff alleged in his petition that state court jurisdiction was proper “pursuant to the Saving to Suitors Clause,” and that the General Maritime Law, provisions of the LHWCA, and Texas law governed the case.[3] Despite these contentions, Defendants filed for removal to federal court based on the jurisdictional provisions of OCSLA, specifically Section 1349(b)(1) of the Act.[4] Defendants’ removal indicated that at the time of Plaintiff’s injury, the vessel was located on the Outer Continental Shelf, and thus jurisdiction requirements of the Act was satisfied.[5]  In consideration of Plaintiff’s motion to remand, the issue was whether the Defendants need only satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of Section 1349 of OCSLA, or whether the additional situs requirements found in Section 1333 of OCSLA must also be satisfied in order for the district court to maintain jurisdiction.[6]

           In support of remand, the Plaintiff relied on Barker v. Hercules Offshore,[7] in which the Fifth Circuit delineated a “but-for” test for determining whether a district court maintains jurisdiction under OCSLA.[8] This Barker test considered “whether: (1) the facts underlying the complaint occurred on the proper situs; (2) the plaintiff’s employment further mineral development on the OCS; and (3) the plaintiff’s injury would not have occurred but for his employment.”[9] Notably, the “proper situs” language included in that test comes not from Section 1349, but rather from Section 1333 of the Act.[10] Plaintiff contended that because the Vessel was “floating on navigable water” and not “moored to the area,” the Vessel did not fall into the provided categories of Section 1333 and thus federal jurisdiction was not proper.[11] In opposition to remand, Defendants alleged that the Barker test was wholly inapplicable here, and instead emphasized the Fifth Circuit’s decision in In re Deepwater Horizon,[12] in which the court “explicitly rejected the argument that there is a situs requirement for OCSLA jurisdiction.”[13]

           The court denied the Plaintiff’s motion to remand, and held that the district court would follow the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning in Deepwater Horizon.[14] The court reasoned that the case was properly removed under Section 1349 of OCSLA because the Defendant demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the case arose out of operations “conducted on the Outer Continental Shelf that involved the exploration and production of minerals.”[15] The trial judge further elaborated that Deepwater Horizon, and its line of preceding cases[16] indicated no situs requirement for jurisdiction under OCSLA.[17] Rather, these cases indicated that the jurisdictional provisions of the Act were applicable even in instances where the worker was injured on a vessel and the case arose in admiralty, or where aviation accidents occurred in transit of workers to production platforms on the Outer Continental Shelf.[18] Finally, the district court noted that it could find no cases predating Barker which demonstrated a situs requirement for OCSLA jurisdiction, and found that to the extent Barker and Deepwater Horizon conflict, the Southern District of Texas will follow the line of cases cited by the panel in Deepwater Horizon.[19]

---

[1] Mannifield v. Talos Energy, LLC, No. 22-1831, 2023 WL 1965996, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23627 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2023).

[2] Id. at *1.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id. at *2.

[7] Barker v. Hercules Offshore, Inc., 713 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 2013).

[8] Mannifield, 2023 WL 1965996, at *2.

[9] Id. at *2 (citing Barker, 713 F.3d at 213).

[10] Id. at *2.

[11] Id.

[12] In re Deepwater Horizon, 745 F.3d 157 (5th Cir. 2014).

[13] Mannifield, 2023 WL 1965996, at *2.

[14] Id. at *3.

[15] Id.

[16] Hufnagel v. Omega Service Industries, Inc., 182 F.3d 340, 350 (5th Cir. 1999); Tennessee Gas Pipeline v. Houston Casualty Insurance Co., 87 F.3d 150, 155 (5th Cir. 1996); Recar v. CNG Producing Co., 853 F.2d 367, 369 (5th Cir. 1988); Barger v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., 692 F.2d 337 (5th Cir. 1982).

[17] Mannifield, 2023 WL 1965996, at *3.

[18] Id. at *4.

[19] Id. at *5.