Cassidy v. Murray
34 F. Supp. 3d 579
D. Maryland2014Background
- On June 17, 2012, a vessel operated by Pamela A. Murray allegedly collided with a boat carrying Susan Cassidy and her husband John Bronson, causing injuries.
- Plaintiffs (Cassidy and Bronson) sued Murray in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City asserting negligence and loss of consortium.
- Murray removed the action to federal court; Cassidy moved to remand back to state court.
- Murray argued federal court has original admiralty jurisdiction because the accident occurred on navigable waters and that a 2011 amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 permits removal of general maritime claims without independent jurisdictional grounds.
- Plaintiffs argued the saving-to-suitors clause preserves a plaintiff’s right to pursue common-law maritime remedies in state court and that removal is improper absent an independent jurisdictional basis (e.g., diversity).
- The District Court granted Cassidy’s motion and remanded, holding the saving-to-suitors clause prevents removal of general maritime claims to federal court absent an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a general maritime (saving-to-suitors) claim filed in state court may be removed to federal court absent an independent jurisdictional basis | Cassidy: saving clause preserves concurrent state-court remedies; removal requires independent basis (e.g., diversity) | Murray: federal courts have original admiralty jurisdiction and the 2011 amendment to § 1441 allows removal based solely on that original jurisdiction | Held: Remand granted. Saving clause bars removal of general maritime claims absent independent jurisdictional basis; 2011 § 1441 amendment did not authorize removal in this context |
| Effect of the 2011 amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on removability of maritime claims | Cassidy: amendment did not alter the saving clause’s protection of plaintiffs’ forum choice | Murray: amendment removed language relied on by pre-2011 precedent and permits removal based on admiralty jurisdiction alone | Held: Court rejected defendant’s reading; amendment does not eviscerate the saving clause or permit removal without independent basis |
| Whether Romero requires protecting plaintiffs’ forum selection for maritime common-law claims | Cassidy: Romero preserves plaintiffs’ option to pursue common-law remedies in state court | Murray: argued maritime negligence impacts maritime commerce and implicates federal admiralty jurisdiction | Held: Court relied on Romero’s principle that permitting removal without independent basis would undermine the saving clause |
| Whether prior cases (e.g., In re Dutile, Ryan) support removal without diversity | Cassidy: longstanding precedent and policy favor remand; recent contrary decisions are not persuasive | Murray: cited Ryan and similar decisions holding post-2011 § 1441 permits removal | Held: Court declined to follow Ryan; found Dutile’s reasoning and saving clause principles controlling and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Romero v. Int’l Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 (1959) (saving-to-suitors clause preserves maritime suitors’ option to pursue common-law remedies in state court)
- Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438 (2001) (saving clause grants state courts concurrent in personam jurisdiction in maritime cases)
- Red Cross Line v. Atl. Fruit Co., 264 U.S. 109 (1924) (discusses scope of concurrent jurisdiction preserved by saving clause)
- Madruga v. Superior Ct. of State of Cal., 346 U.S. 556 (1954) (limitation of exclusive federal admiralty jurisdiction to in rem proceedings)
- The Moses Taylor, 71 U.S. 411 (1866) (distinguishes preservation of common-law remedies under the saving clause)
- In re Dutile, 935 F.2d 61 (5th Cir. 1991) (held § 1441 precluded removal of saving-clause maritime actions absent diversity)
- Servis v. Hiller Sys. Inc., 54 F.3d 203 (4th Cir. 1995) (recognizes saving clause preserves maritime common-law remedies in state court)
- Ryan v. Hercules Offshore, Inc., 945 F. Supp. 2d 772 (S.D. Tex. 2013) (held post-2011 § 1441 permits removal of general maritime claims; district court here rejected this authority)
- Coronel v. AK Victory, 1 F. Supp. 3d 1175 (W.D. Wash. 2014) (discussion of exclusive admiralty jurisdiction limited to in rem proceedings)