Bartel v. Alcoa Steamship Company, Inc.
3:14-cv-00318
M.D. La.Oct 2, 2014Background
- Bartel, as personal representative of the Estate of Malcolm Esquerre, filed a state-court action alleging Jones Act and general maritime claims arising from asbestos exposure on vessels owned or operated by multiple defendants.
- Alcoa Steamship Company removed the case to federal court in May 2014; other defendants consented to removal.
- Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing Jones Act claims are non-removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(a) and general maritime claims non-removable under the saving-to-suitors clause (25 U.S.C. § 1333(1)).
- The court analyzes removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and § 1441(c), including the 2011 amendments, to determine whether the action may be removed in its entirety and, if not, whether severance/remand is required.
- The magistrate judge recommends granting the remand motion and remanding the action to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones Act claims are non-removable under §1445(a). | Bartel argues Jones Act claims are non-removable. | Defendants contend removal is proper and §1441(c) may apply. | Jones Act claims are non-removable under §1445(a). |
| Whether §1441(c) permits removal of general maritime claims joined with Jones Act claims. | Bartel contends no removal for general maritime claims; saving-to-suitors prevents removal. | Defendants rely on §1441(c) to remove entire action and sever non-removable claims. | §1441(c) does not authorize removal of this action in its entirety; the court must sever and remand Jones Act claims. |
| Whether the entire action is removable given a non-removable Jones Act claim and no federal-question claim. | Bartel asserts absence of federal-question jurisdiction prevents removal. | Defendants assert removal is permissible under the amended framework. | The action is not removable in its entirety; remand required. |
| Whether severance/remand is required for the Jones Act claim. | Jones Act claim should be remanded. | Remand not necessary if removal is proper. | Severance and remand of the non-removable Jones Act claim required; action remanded to state court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 (1959) (maritime claims do not arise under federal question jurisdiction)
- Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990) (adm. claims not arising under federal law; issues of removability tied to jurisdiction)
- In re Dutile, 935 F.2d 61 (5th Cir. 1991) (admiralty claims do not arise under federal law)
- Pate v. Standard Dredging Corp., 193 F.2d 498 (5th Cir. 1952) (Jones Act modified by FELA; non-removable)
- Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438 (2001) (Jones Act claims non-removable under §1445(a))
- Frank v. Bear Stearns & Co., 128 F.3d 919 (5th Cir. 1997) (removal statutes strictly construed)
- Burchett v. Cargill, Inc., 48 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 1995) (fraudulent-pleading standard for proving removability)
- Zertuche v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., LLC, 306 F. App’x 93 (5th Cir. 2009) (heavy burden to show fraudulent Jones Act pleadings)