Riverside Construction Co. v. Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 626 F. App'x 443

Entergy contracted Riverside to repair a docking "Dolphin System" damaged by a barge; agreed price capped at $176,585.62 but repairs exceeded $1 million and Entergy refused to pay.
Riverside sued in Mississippi state court for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment.
Entergy removed the suit to federal court asserting admiralty/maritime jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333, arguing the contract was maritime because work occurred on navigable waters from a barge and the Dolphin System was integral to maritime commerce.
The district court remanded, concluding the contract was not maritime (the barge was used as a stationary work platform and transport was ancillary) and invoked the savings-to-suitors doctrine; Riverside sought fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
The district court denied fees, finding Entergy had an objectively reasonable, good-faith basis to remove; Riverside appealed.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding Entergy’s removal arguments were colorable and reasonable given unsettled law about removability of maritime-only claims and whether the barge use rendered the contract maritime.

Issue	Riverside's Argument	Entergy's Argument	Held
Whether Entergy had an objectively reasonable basis for removal under § 1447(c)	Removal was not objectively reasonable because the contract was not maritime and the savings-to-suitors clause bars removal of maritime claims in state court	Removal was reasonable: facts and precedent supported classifying the contract as maritime; removability was unsettled after statutory amendment and savings-to-suitors objections can be procedural and waivable	Affirmed denial of fees: removal was objectively reasonable and made in good faith

Valdes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 199 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 2000) (standard for awarding fees on remand under § 1447(c))
Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (U.S. 2005) (fees denied when defendant had objectively reasonable basis for removal)
J.A.R., Inc. v. M/V Lady Lucille, 963 F.2d 96 (5th Cir. 1992) (maritime contract test)
Theriot v. Bay Drilling Corp., 783 F.2d 527 (5th Cir. 1986) (distinguishing vessel-use and maritime status; barges may be vessels)
Gulf Coast Shell & Aggregate LP v. Newlin, 623 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2010) (definition of maritime contract: relates to use of a ship, navigation, transportation by sea, or maritime employment)
Romero v. Int’l Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 (U.S. 1959) (savings-to-suitors clause and limits on removal of maritime claims)
Vatican Shrimp Co. v. Solis, 820 F.2d 674 (5th Cir. 1987) (uncertainty about removability supports denial of sanctions for removal)