Figueroa v. Marine Inspection Services, LLC
28 F. Supp. 3d 677
S.D. Tex.2014Background
- Plaintiff Oliver Figueroa was burned while performing hot work on the vessel MOC 10 while it was in dry dock on March 18, 2013.
- Figueroa sued vessel owner Third Coast Towing, LLC and Marine Inspection Services, LLC for negligence and negligence per se under general maritime law and/or the LHWCA § 905(b) and/or Texas common law; he filed in state court and demanded a jury trial.
- Defendants removed to federal court asserting federal admiralty/maritime jurisdiction as the basis for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
- Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing the dry dock was on land (so no maritime jurisdiction) and that saving-to-suitors claims removable only with an independent federal basis.
- The Court found, on uncontested evidence, the incident occurred on a floating dry dock in the Corpus Christi ship channel, satisfying the Grubart test for maritime jurisdiction.
- Despite maritime jurisdiction, the Court held removal improper because the case was brought under the saving-to-suitors clause and there is no independent basis for federal jurisdiction; remand to state court granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the incident occurred on navigable water (maritime jurisdiction) | Dry dock appears on land; no maritime jurisdiction | Dry dock was floating in ship channel; maritime jurisdiction exists | Court found dry dock was floating in navigable waters; maritime jurisdiction satisfied |
| Whether a saving-to-suitors claim removable based solely on admiralty/maritime original jurisdiction | Saving-to-suitors preserves state forum and jury right; removal improper absent independent federal basis | 2011 amendment to §1441(b) allows removal of maritime claims without separate basis (per Ryan) | Court held removal statute still requires that the case be within federal "original jurisdiction"; saving-to-suitors claims are not removable absent an independent federal jurisdictional basis |
| Whether removal would defeat plaintiff's jury demand | Plaintiff argued removal would strip his jury trial right preserved by saving-to-suitors clause | Defendants relied on revised §1441(b) interpretations (Ryan) | Court agreed preservation of jury right is a key policy; requiring independent jurisdiction protects that right and supports remand |
| Burden of proof for removal jurisdiction | Plaintiff noted defendants bear burden to show removability | Defendants submitted declaration proving floating dry dock location | Court applied burden rule; defendants met maritime-jurisdiction burden but not the separate removability basis requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (Sup. Ct.) (three-part maritime jurisdiction test)
- Scarborough v. Clemco Indus., 391 F.3d 660 (5th Cir. 2004) (applying Grubart factors)
- Avondale Marine Ways, Inc. v. Henderson, 201 F.2d 437 (5th Cir. 1953) (floating dry docks considered in navigable waters)
- Romero v. Int’l Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 (Sup. Ct.) (saving-to-suitors clause and removal principles)
- Barker v. Hercules Offshore, Inc., 713 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 2013) (saving-to-suitors exempts maritime claims from removal absent independent federal basis)
- Luera v. M/V Alberta, 635 F.3d 181 (5th Cir. 2011) (distinguishing in personam law claims and jury rights in maritime context)
- Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404 (5th Cir. 1995) (burden of proof on removing party)
- Atl. & Gulf Stevedores v. Ellerman Lines, Ltd., 369 U.S. 355 (Sup. Ct.) (jury trial rights under diversity vs. admiralty)