62 F. Supp. 3d 555
E.D. Tex.2014Background
- Plaintiffs filed a Texas wrongful death suit against Defendant for allegedly failing to warn about nitrogen on a barge.
- Decedent died from nitrogen asphyxiation aboard a barge on navigable waters in Texas.
- Defendant removed the action to federal court arguing original admiralty jurisdiction and removal under §1441.
- Plaintiffs moved to remand, challenging jurisdiction and removal basis.
- Court analyzes the pre- and post-2011 §1441 framework and the saving-to-suitors clause to determine removability.
- Court ultimately grants remand and orders the action returned to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admiralty jurisdiction supports removal to federal court | Hamerly argues no admiralty removal without diversity | Hercules Offshore argues §1441 amendments permit removal | Not removable; remand granted |
| Effect of the 2011 §1441 amendment on removability of admiralty claims | Amendment eliminates diversity requirement for removals | Amendment clarifies §1441 but does not expand admiralty removability | Amendment does not permit removal of maritime claims absent other jurisdictional bases; remand affirmed |
| Saving-to-suitors clause bars removal of maritime claims filed in state court | Saving-to-suitors requires remand to protect jury trial rights | Removal is permissible under amended §1441 for diversity cases | Remand appropriate; saving-to-suitors clause remains controlling |
| Dutile/Barker framework governs whether admiralty claims can be removed post-amendment | Precedent precludes removal of admiralty claims filed in state court | Post-amendment interpretations may allow removal under §1441(a) | Court adheres to the longstanding rule: maritime claims in state court are not removable absent diversity or other federal jurisdiction; remand granted |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Dutile, 935 F.2d 61 (5th Cir.1991) (held admiralty claims filed in state court are not removable absent diversity)
- Barker v. Hercules Offshore, Inc., 713 F.3d 208 (5th Cir.2013) (discusses removal jurisdiction and diversity in admiralty context)
- Ryan v. Hercules Offshore, Inc., 945 F.Supp.2d 772 (S.D. Tex.2013) (contemporary view on §1441 amendments and admiralty removal)
- Romero v. Int'l Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 (Sup. Ct.1959) (maritime claims do not arise under the U.S. Constitution/treaties/laws for removal purposes)
- Vantage Drilling Co. v. Hsin-Chi Su, 741 F.3d 535 (5th Cir.2014) (doubts on removal jurisdiction resolved against federal jurisdiction)
- Barry v. Shell Oil Co., 2014 WL 775662 (E.D. La.2014) (discusses applicability of admiralty removal post-amendment (WL cited; exclude from list if strict reporter rule))
- Coronel v. AK Victory, 2014 WL 820270 (W.D. Wash.2014) (discusses saving-to-suitors and jurisdiction over maritime claims)
- Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (Sup. Ct.1941) (removal and federalism concerns; strict interpretation of removal rules)