Apache Corporation v. Global Santa Fe Drilling Co.
435 F. App'x 322
5th Cir.2011Background
- Hurricane Rita allision on the Outer Continental Shelf between GSF's ADRIATIC VII and Apache's Platform 128; Apache sues for negligence seeking salvage/repair costs under admiralty and OCSLA; Apache also seeks a jury trial; GSF moves to strike jury demands arguing admiralty jurisdiction; district court denies the motion.
- Apache asserted both admiralty (28 U.S.C. §1333, AEA) and federal-question (OCSLA) bases; joint-stipulation stated Apache did not make a Rule 9(h) declaration.
- GSF argues Luera rule applies because multiple jurisdiction bases were pled; Apache's position shifts in appeal but the stipulation remains a controlling fact.
- The district court’s denial of the motion to strike jury demands is preserved on appeal.
- Court ultimately affirms that Apache did not make a Rule 9(h) declaration and that civil-procedure rules apply, preserving Apache’s right to a jury trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Apache made a Rule 9(h) declaration. | Apache did not designate admiralty under Rule 9(h). | Because multiple bases existed (admiralty and OCSLA), Luera should apply and imply a Rule 9(h) designation. | Apache did not make a Rule 9(h) declaration. |
| Whether the case is governed by civil procedure or admiralty rules. | Multiple jurisdiction bases exist, but the stipulation controls. | Luera governs designation when jurisdiction bases are mixed. | Apache’s claims are governed by civil procedure; jury trial right preserved. |
| Whether the district court properly denied striking the jury demands. | Apache entitled to jury trial under civil procedure. | Jury trial should be stricken if admiralty designation applies. | Affirmed; district court denial of the motion to strike jury demands stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Luera v. M/V Alberta, 635 F.3d 181 (5th Cir. 2011) (rule on designation where admiralty and other bases coexist; automatic Luera implication otherwise)
- Bodden v. Osgood, 879 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1989) (totality of circumstances governs admiralty-jurisdiction invocation)
- Wingerter v. Chester Quarry Co., 185 F.3d 657 (7th Cir. 1998) (totality-of-circumstances approach to admiralty designation)
- Gilmore v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 790 F.2d 1244 (5th Cir. 1986) (admiralty vs. civil procedures when jurisdiction asserted)
- Christian Legal Soc’y Chapter of the Univ. of Cal. v. Martinez, 130 S. Ct. 2971 (2010) (fact stipulations can withdraw issues from litigation)