376 F. Supp. 3d 726
S.D. Tex.2019Background
- Plaintiff Gilbert Sanchez, a welder employed by Smart Fabricators, injured his ankle and back in August 2018 while working on the Enterprise 263, a jacked-up drilling rig on the Outer Continental Shelf.
- Sanchez sued in state court asserting negligence and unseaworthiness claims against Enterprise Offshore Drilling and Smart Fabricators seeking damages.
- Defendants removed to federal court under federal question/Outer Continental Shelf jurisdiction; Sanchez dismissed claims against Enterprise Offshore and moved to remand, arguing the Jones Act bars removal.
- Central legal question: whether Sanchez qualifies as a Jones Act "seaman," because seaman status (if plausible) would preclude removal.
- Factual record: Sanchez worked 67 days for Smart Fabricators before the injury (48 days on a jacked-up rig next to a pier, 13 days on an offshore jacked-up rig, 2 days on land); he performed welding/maintenance, sometimes ate/slept aboard, but was not a crew member and did not operate or navigate the rigs.
- Court conducted a summary-judgment–type inquiry and concluded Sanchez was not a seaman; remand denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court has jurisdiction / removal is improper because Jones Act claims bar removal | Sanchez contends he is a Jones Act seaman, so removal is barred | Defendants contend Jones Act does not apply because Sanchez was not a seaman and removal is proper | Removal proper; remand denied because no reasonable possibility Sanchez can establish Jones Act seaman status |
| Whether jacked-up drilling rigs are "vessels in navigation" | Rigs are vessels; Sanchez worked aboard vessels in navigation | Defendants argue rigs were undergoing repairs and functionally like fixed platforms (not vessels) | Court treats jacked-up rigs as vessels in navigation; defendants did not show rigs were withdrawn from navigation by prolonged overhaul |
| Whether Sanchez satisfies Jones Act substantial-connection (nature) requirement | Sanchez claims his welding/maintenance aboard, and living aboard, show substantial connection and exposure to maritime perils | Defendants say his duties were landlike, non-crew, and did not expose him to seafaring perils | Held that Sanchez’s duties did not expose him to perils of the sea and he was not a crew member; substantial-nature prong not met |
| Whether Sanchez satisfies Jones Act duration requirement | Sanchez asserts he spent majority of time on rigs | Defendants concede time on rigs but emphasize nature of duties | Court found duration (over 30% aboard) satisfied, but nature prong failed, so overall seaman status not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (1995) (establishes two-prong seaman test: contribution to vessel's mission and substantial connection in duration and nature)
- Stewart v. Dutra Const. Co., 543 U.S. 481 (2005) (defines "vessel" as used or capable of maritime transportation; "in navigation" ties to vessel capability)
- Naquin v. Elevating Boats, L.L.C., 744 F.3d 927 (5th Cir. 2014) (worker aboard liftboats performing ship’s work held seaman despite vessels being moored/jacked)
- Wilcox v. Wild Well Control, Inc., 794 F.3d 531 (5th Cir. 2015) (applies Chandris two-prong test in Fifth Circuit)
- Barker v. Hercules Offshore, Inc., 713 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 2013) (jack-up drilling platforms can be vessels under maritime law)
- Flagg v. Stryker Corp., 819 F.3d 132 (5th Cir. 2016) (district court may pierce pleadings and use summary-judgment–type inquiry to evaluate impropriety of Jones Act joinder)