Langlois v. Kirby Inland Marine, LP
139 F. Supp. 3d 804
M.D. La.2015Background
- Plaintiffs Lynn and Rosemary Langlois sued in state court after an alleged collision that damaged their houseboat and flatboat; claims are brought under general maritime law (no Jones Act claim asserted).
- Defendant Kirby Inland Marine removed the case to federal court, citing admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 and the 2011 amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1441.
- The Court sua sponte ordered Kirby to show cause why the case should not be remanded in light of Harrold v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters. Kirby filed an opposition; plaintiffs did not respond.
- Central legal question: whether the 2011 amendment to § 1441 permits removal of general maritime claims filed in state court absent an independent basis for federal jurisdiction (e.g., diversity).
- The Court reviewed conflicting district-court authority (e.g., Provost/Ryan vs. Harrold and a growing majority) and concluded the majority view that general maritime claims remain non-removable absent an independent jurisdictional basis controls.
- Because Defendant failed to show any independent basis for federal jurisdiction and the saving-to-suitors clause is implicated when a plaintiff elects to sue at law in state court, the Court remanded the action to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Removability of general maritime claims after 2011 § 1441 amendment | Langlois implicitly seeks to proceed in state court under the saving-to-suitors clause (no removal) | Kirby contends the 2011 amendment permits removal of general maritime claims even absent diversity or other independent jurisdiction | Court held general maritime claims filed at law in state court are not removable absent an independent jurisdictional basis; remand required |
| Applicability of Harrold vs. Provost (competing M.D. La. precedents) | Harrold supports non-removability and applies here | Kirby urged Provost (following Ryan) should control to permit removal | Court found Harrold and the majority of recent decisions persuasive; Provost does not control |
| Effect of absence of a Jones Act claim | Plaintiffs emphasize election of state-law forum; no Jones Act claim does not alter saving-to-suitors protection | Kirby argued lack of Jones Act claim distinguishes Harrold/Bartel and favors removability | Court rejected this: absence of Jones Act claim does not make a general maritime claim removable without independent jurisdiction |
| Whether saving-to-suitors clause is implicated because no jury demand / federal remedies available | Langlois’ choice to sue in state court invokes the saving-to-suitors clause and preserves remedies and forum choice | Kirby argued no jury demand and no unavailable federal remedy, so saving-to-suitors not implicated | Court held the saving-to-suitors clause is implicated by filing at law in state court regardless of explicit jury demand; non-removability follows |
Key Cases Cited
- Romero v. Int’l Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 (Sup. Ct. 1959) (historic rationale that the saving-to-suitors clause bars removal of maritime claims filed at law in state court)
- Barker v. Hercules Offshore, Inc., 713 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 2013) (discusses admiralty removal and the effect of the 2011 amendment)
- Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438 (Sup. Ct. 2001) (saving-to-suitors clause protects remedies including jury trial)
- In re Dutile, 935 F.2d 61 (5th Cir. 1991) (admiralty claims removable only with independent jurisdictional basis)
- Frank v. Bear Stearns & Co., 128 F.3d 919 (5th Cir. 1997) (removal statute construed narrowly; doubts resolved against federal jurisdiction)
- Acuna v. Brown & Root, 200 F.3d 335 (5th Cir. 2000) (removal jurisdiction must be strictly construed)
- Victory Carriers, Inc. v. Law, 404 U.S. 202 (Sup. Ct. 1971) (explains saving-to-suitors clause and plaintiff’s forum choice)