Bingham v. Haynes Jr., 3:17-cv-01694

Plaintiff Deanne Bingham sued Sam B. Haynes, Jr. in Louisiana state court for injuries sustained as a guest passenger on the vessel SEA MACK, asserting a general maritime negligence claim and demanding a jury trial.
Defendant removed to federal court relying on federal admiralty jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1333) and post-2011 amendments to the removal statute (28 U.S.C. § 1441).
Bingham moved to remand, arguing general maritime claims brought in state court remain non-removable under the "saving to suitors" clause despite the 2011 § 1441 amendments.
Defendant contended § 1441(a) now permits removal of any claim within original federal jurisdiction (including admiralty) unless Congress expressly forbade removal.
The Magistrate Judge found a split of authority but noted a growing majority of district courts hold the 2011 amendments did not displace the saving-to-suitors rule; remand was recommended in this case.
The Magistrate also recommended remand on the narrower ground that Plaintiff demanded a jury trial in state court, a remedy unavailable in federal admiralty jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether general maritime (admiralty) claims filed in state court are removable after the 2011 amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1441	2011 amendments did not eliminate the long-standing non-removability of general maritime claims under the saving-to-suitors clause	§ 1441(a) permits removal of any claim within original federal jurisdiction (including admiralty) unless Congress expressly restricted removal	Majority view favored: 2011 amendments did not displace saving-to-suitors; remand appropriate (recommended)
Whether a state-court jury demand in a maritime case bars removal to federal court	Jury trial is an available remedy to suitors in state court and removal would deprive plaintiff of that remedy	Removal is permissible if federal court has original admiralty jurisdiction	Held: Jury demand in state court makes removal improper because federal admiralty courts do not provide jury trials; remand recommended

Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326 (5th Cir.) (removal burden on removing party)
Frank v. Bear Stearns & Co., 128 F.3d 919 (5th Cir.) (strict construction of removal statute)
Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335 (5th Cir.) (resolve doubts against federal jurisdiction)
Barker v. Hercules Offshore, Inc., 713 F.3d 208 (5th Cir.) (pre-2011 rule: admiralty jurisdiction alone did not permit removal)
Romero v. Int’l Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 (U.S.) (saving-to-suitors discussion and admiralty jurisdiction limits)
Morris v. T E Marine Corp., 344 F.3d 439 (5th Cir.) (admiralty claims and removal principles)
Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438 (U.S.) (saving-to-suitors preserves certain remedies such as jury trial)
Luera v. M/V Alberta, 635 F.3d 181 (5th Cir.) (admiralty lacks right to jury)
Tennessee Gas Pipeline v. Houston Cas. Ins. Co., 87 F.3d 150 (5th Cir.) (saving-to-suitors preserves nonmaritime remedies)