Gregoire v. Enterprise Marine Services, LLC
38 F. Supp. 3d 749
E.D. La.2014Background
- Gregoire filed a Seaman’s Petition for Damages in the Terrebonne Parish state court asserting Jones Act and General Maritime Law claims, including maintenance and cure and spoliation, with four counts: unseaworthiness, Jones Act negligence, maintenance and cure, and spoliation.
- Enterprise Marine Services timely removed the case to federal court on April 10, 2014 under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1333, invoking the saving to suitors clause and the removal statute.
- Gregoire moved to remand contending that Jones Act claims are non-removable and that GM claims asserted under the saving to suitors clause lack a federal jurisdictional basis, making removal improper and seeking costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
- The court analyzes whether GM claims are removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 and § 1441, considering the 2011 amendments to removal and case law such as Romero and Dutile.
- The court concludes that GM claims are not removable under § 1333 absent an independent basis of jurisdiction, and that § 1441(c) does not apply to this case because the Jones Act claim remains non-removable when joined with GM claims.
- As a result, the court GRANTS Gregoire’s remand motion and remands the action to the Terrebonne Parish Civil District Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are General Maritime Law claims removable under 1333 when joined with Jones Act claims? | Gregoire: GM claims require independent jurisdiction; not removable. | Enterprise: GM claims are removable under § 1333 when joined with removable claims under § 1441(c). | GM claims are not removable under § 1333 without independent jurisdiction. |
| Can the Jones Act claim be removed under § 1441(c) when joined with removable GM claims? | Jones Act claims remain non-removable; § 1441(c) cannot rescue the removal. | Jones Act can be severed and removed under § 1441(c) when paired with removable GM claims. | § 1441(c) does not apply; Jones Act remains non-removable in this context. |
| Did the 2011 removal amendments alter the removability of GM claims under Romero framework? | Amendments made GM claims removable under § 1441; Romero policy overridden. | Amendments do not change long-standing rule; GM claims require independent jurisdiction. | Amendments do not convert GM claims into removable claims under § 1441. |
Key Cases Cited
- Romero v. Int’l Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 (1959) (foundational on saving to suitors and admiralty jurisdiction)
- In re Dutile, 935 F.2d 61 (5th Cir.1991) (GM claims not removable absent independent jurisdiction; forum defendant rule)
- Barker v. Hercules Offshore, Inc., 713 F.3d 208 (5th Cir.2013) (AM amendments; forum-defendant rule and removal of admiralty claims discussed)
- Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85 (1946) (admiralty procedures and forum distinctions)
- Leon v. Galceran, 78 U.S. 185 (1870) (common-law vs admiralty remedies for in personam actions)
- The Moses Taylor, 71 U.S. 411 (1866) (historical treatment of admiralty jurisdiction and concurrent state/federal remedies)