3:25-cv-00160
S.D. Tex.Jul 31, 2025Background
- Galveston-Texas City Pilots Association (GalTex) and Houston Pilots are both unincorporated associations of Texas-licensed maritime pilots, operating under separate chapters of the Texas Transportation Code.
- At issue is whether GalTex or Houston Pilots are authorized to provide compulsory pilotage services in the Bolivar Roads Anchorage, part of Galveston Harbor in Texas.
- GalTex sued Houston Pilots in Texas state court seeking declaratory relief and damages, alleging Houston Pilots are not permitted to provide pilotage in Bolivar Roads under Texas law.
- Houston Pilots removed the case to federal court, claiming both federal question and admiralty jurisdiction.
- GalTex moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing no federal jurisdiction exists.
- The court reviewed whether the case raised a substantial federal question or was removable solely based on admiralty jurisdiction, ultimately recommending remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal question jurisdiction over pilotage rights | State law issue only; no federal law invoked | Raises federal pilotage rights in federal anchorage | No federal question; only Texas law at issue |
| Definition of "Bolivar Roads Jobs" | Excludes coastwise/federal pilotage vessels | Includes all pilotage, including federal | Plaintiff defines its claim; excludes federal aspect |
| Removal based on admiralty jurisdiction | Admiralty alone does not suffice | Any pilotage on navigable waters invokes admiralty | Admiralty is not independent basis for removal |
| Effect of saving-to-suitors clause after 2011 | Preserves state court authority absent other grounds | Removability changed post-2011 amendments | Remand favored; no clear precedent for removal |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (well-pleaded complaint rule for federal jurisdiction)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts have limited, strictly construed jurisdiction)
- Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720 (removing party bears burden to show federal jurisdiction)
- Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc., 200 F.3d 335 (doubts about removal resolved in favor of remand)
- Singh v. Duane Morris LLP, 538 F.3d 334 (state law claims raise federal issues only if substantial/disputed)
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (test for federal issue embedded in state-law claim)
- Romero v. Int’l Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 (admiralty claims not removable without independent basis)
- Willy v. Coastal Corp., 855 F.2d 1160 (strict construction of removal jurisdiction; federalism concerns)