Ryan v. Hercules Offshore, Inc.
945 F. Supp. 2d 772
S.D. Tex.2013Background
- Decedent Mark Ryan, an employee of Wild Well, died aboard the Noble Percy Johns off Port Harcourt, Nigeria during a drilling operation.
- Plaintiffs, widow Jonnie Ryan as personal representative, sue Wild Well, Noble, Hercules Offshore, and Hercules Liftboat for negligence and unseaworthiness under DOHSA, general maritime law, and the Sieracki seaman doctrine.
- Wild Well removed the case from Texas state court to federal court, arguing removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 based on original federal jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs moved to remand, contending the claims are general maritime and historically non-removable; Wild Well urged the amended § 1441 permits removal if original jurisdiction exists.
- The court analyzes the 2011 amendment to § 1441 and its effect on removability of admiralty claims and related theories (DOHSA and Sieracki).
- Plaintiffs later dropped claims against Hercules Offshore, Inc. and Hercules Liftboat Co., LLC; removal timing issues and related procedural notes are discussed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are admiralty claims removable under the amended § 1441? | Plaintiff argues admiralty claims remain non-removable under the saving-to-suitors clause. | Wild Well argues the amended statute allows removal where there is original jurisdiction and no congressional bar. | Removable; amendments clarify removability when original jurisdiction exists. |
| DoHSA claims are removable under the amended statute? | DOHSA claims are generally admiralty/governed by maritime law and historically non-removable. | DOHSA claims should be removable due to original jurisdiction under admiralty. | Removable; DOHSA claims fall under removable admiralty jurisdiction when original jurisdiction exists. |
| Are Sieracki seaman claims removable under the amended statute? | Sieracki seaman claims are maritime and non-diverse, thus not removable. | Sieracki/seamen claims are removable under the amended § 1441 as admiralty actions with original jurisdiction. | Removable; Sieracki claim falls within removable admiralty jurisdiction under the amended statute. |
| Did the 2011 amendment to § 1441 have substantive effect on removability or merely codify existing law? | Amendment is non-substantive; legislative history should guide interpretation. | Amendment substantively alters removal by focusing on diversity provisions; preserves removability if original jurisdiction exists. | Amendment substantively clarifies removability framework; does not bar removal where original jurisdiction exists. |
Key Cases Cited
- Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 (U.S. 1959) (general maritime claims do not arise under federal question for removal purposes)
- In re Dutile, 935 F.2d 61 (5th Cir. 1991) (admiralty claims may be non-removable under the prior § 1441(b) framework)
- Tennessee Gas Pipeline v. Houston Casualty Insurance Co., 87 F.3d 150 (5th Cir. 1996) (saving-to-suitors clause does not preclude removal where original jurisdiction exists)
- Poirrier v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 648 F.2d 1063 (5th Cir. 1981) (illustrates diversity-based removal of maritime actions)
- Williams v. M/V Sonora, 985 F.2d 808 (5th Cir. 1993) (illustrates limits of federal question removal in maritime cases)
- Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U.S. 207 (U.S. 1986) (DOHSA reads as concurrent federal and state jurisdiction; supports admiralty framework)
- Motts v. M/V GREEN WAVE, 210 F.3d 565 (5th Cir. 2000) (DOHSA creates admiralty jurisdiction; DOHSA claims are not federal questions)
- Barker v. Hercules Offshore, Inc., 713 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 2013) (recognizes amendments clarifying removal for admiralty claims with original jurisdiction)