Pierce v. Parker Towing Co.
25 F. Supp. 3d 1372
S.D. Ala.2014Background
- Plaintiffs (Alabama and Mississippi landowners) sued Parker Towing (Alabama citizen) in state court for damage to riparian real property caused by barges/tugboat; claims: negligence, wantonness, trespass, private nuisance; jury demand.
- Parker removed to federal court invoking the court’s original admiralty and maritime jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1333).
- Plaintiffs moved to remand; Magistrate Judge Nelson recommended remand; District Judge DuBose adopted the recommendation with amendment.
- Central procedural question: whether the post‑2011 amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) permits removal of in personam maritime claims based solely on federal admiralty jurisdiction (thereby defeating the plaintiff’s saved common‑law remedies, e.g., jury trial).
- The Court found Plaintiffs’ claims are maritime but were filed under the "saving to suitors" clause; removal based solely on admiralty would deprive Plaintiffs of common‑law remedies (notably jury trial) and thus remand is required absent a separate basis for federal jurisdiction (e.g., diversity).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amended § 1441(b) allows removal of in personam maritime claims solely on admiralty § 1333 jurisdiction | DuBose: removal is improper because Plaintiffs invoked the saving clause and would lose common‑law remedies if removed | Parker: § 1441(b) amendment removed language that prevented removal; Fifth Circuit district decisions allow removal | Court held: No — amended § 1441(b) does not authorize removal solely on admiralty; remand required absent separate federal jurisdiction |
| Whether the "saving to suitors" clause preserves plaintiff's right to a jury trial and prevents removal | Plaintiffs: saving clause preserves common‑law remedies (jury) and concurrent state forum; they are entitled to remand | Parker: removal does not foreclose jury rights; amendment permits federal removal | Court held: Saving clause preserves common‑law remedies; removal solely to admiralty would strip jury right, so remand preserves that right |
| Whether prior Fifth Circuit precedent (In re Dutile) was abrogated by the 2011 FCJVCA amendment to § 1441(b) | Plaintiffs: Eleventh Circuit precedent and Romero line controls; § 1333 limits removal regardless of § 1441 change | Parker: Post‑amendment Fifth Circuit district decisions (e.g., Ryan) show Dutile’s basis is gone and removal is permissible | Court held: Even if Dutile’s textual basis changed, § 1333/saving clause and Eleventh Circuit approach continue to preclude removal of in personam maritime claims absent separate jurisdiction |
| Effect of failing to timely move to remand | Plaintiffs: they timely moved; preserving right to remand | Parker: waiver can occur if plaintiff does not timely object | Court held: Timely motion preserves right to remand; failure to timely object possibly waives saving‑clause remedy (not applicable here) |
Key Cases Cited
- Romero v. Int’l Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 (1959) (establishes the saving‑to‑suitors principle preserving state common‑law remedies for maritime claims)
- Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438 (2001) (explains the distinction between substantive maritime rights and procedural remedies saved by the saving clause)
- Madruga v. Superior Court, 346 U.S. 556 (1954) (admiralty exclusive jurisdiction applies to in rem actions; in personam suits may be brought in state court under the saving clause)
- In re Dutile, 935 F.2d 61 (5th Cir. 1991) (held admiralty claims removable only with diversity; relied on pre‑2012 § 1441(b) language)
- Poirrier v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 648 F.2d 1063 (5th Cir. 1981) (construed Romero to allow removal only where another federal basis, e.g., diversity, exists)
- Armstrong v. Alabama Power Co., 667 F.2d 1385 (11th Cir. 1982) (under Romero, maritime nature alone does not furnish federal removal jurisdiction)
- Fitzgerald v. U.S. Lines Co., 374 U.S. 16 (1963) (addresses jury rights in admiralty context; Jones Act hybrid cases may preserve jury trial)
- Gaitor v. Peninsular & Occidental S.S. Co., 287 F.2d 252 (5th Cir. 1961) (interprets Romero’s limits on removal of maritime actions)
- In re Graham, 747 F.2d 1383 (11th Cir. 1984) (discusses that admiralty actions adjudicated on the admiralty side do not afford jury trials)