Luera v. M/V ALBERTA
635 F.3d 181
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Luera, a longshore worker, was injured in the Port of Houston while working for Cooper/T. Smith, suiting two vessels in rem (ALBERTA and VOC ROSE) and their owners/managers in personam.
- Suit 1 (admiralty) asserted admiralty jurisdiction; Luera sought intervention and asserted admiralty jurisdiction.
- Suit 2 (diversity) asserted diversity jurisdiction for in personam claims and demanded a jury trial; Suit 3 (in rem) against VOC ROSE rested on admiralty jurisdiction.
- The district court consolidated the three suits, later realigned parties, and Luera amended to clarify the in personam claims were premised on diversity, not admiralty.
- Luera settled with Reese Development and J.P. Samartzis; the remaining appellants were White Dolphin, Samos Shipping, and ALBERTA, with Luera’s jury-trial demand preserved for the in personam claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Luera’s in rem admiralty claims preclude a jury trial on in personam claims | Luera did not elect admiralty for in personam claims; diversity basis preserved jury right | Presence of in rem claims triggers Rule 9(h) election for whole case | No; presence of in rem claims does not automatically preclude jury trial for in personam claims |
| Whether Luera’s amendment withdrawn any Rule 9(h) election | Amendment clarified admiralty vs diversity for in personam claims | Amendment prejudicial to defendants; election remains | Amendment proper; Luera withdrawn any Rule 9(h) election for in personam claims |
| Whether consolidation affected the jury-trial right | Fitzgerald applies to join closely related claims with a jury right | Admiralty procedures and in rem claims should foreclose jury | Consolidation permitted jury trial; Fitzgerald governs when related claims share facts and one carries jury right |
| What governing rule applies post-unification of rules on jury trials for admiralty vs non-admiralty claims | No absolute ban on jury trials when admiralty and non-admiralty claims are joined | Unification preserves general rule admiralty claims are bench trials | Jury trial may be allowed where claims arise from same facts; no constitutional bar to jury for mixed claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Fitzgerald v. United States Lines Co., 374 U.S. 16 (1963) (joint trial of admiralty and non-admiralty claims when based on one set of facts; Fitzgerald governs)
- T.N.T. Marine Service, Inc. v. Weaver Shipyards & Dry Docks, Inc., 702 F.2d 585 (5th Cir. 1983) (Rule 9(h) election by admiralty claim; automatic election when admiralty asserted as basis)
- Durden v. Exxon Corp., 803 F.2d 845 (5th Cir. 1986) (admiralty vs diversity dual bases; Rule 9(h) election applies to claims, not entire case)
- Ghotra v. Bandila Shipping, Inc., 113 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 1997) (admiralty claim presence does not defeat jury trial on related non-admiralty claims)
- Vodusek v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 71 F.3d 148 (4th Cir. 1995) (admiralty and diversity claims may allow jury trial when related to same accident)
- Blake v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 417 F.2d 264 (3d Cir. 1969) (courts may consolidate admiralty and non-admiralty claims for jury trial when related)