Venable v. Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corp.
740 F.3d 937
5th Cir.2013Background
- Venable and LWCC disputed the third-party settlement with Hillcorp under the LHWCA; LWCC allegedly refused consent, risking future benefits for Venable.
- The Venables sought to enforce LWCC’s purported consent or waiver of the written-approval requirement, after LWCC initially refused to sign the LS-33 form.
- The district court dismissed Venables’ action based on implied waiver and later granted LWCC summary judgment that LWCC’s withholding of consent was proper under the LHWCA.
- LWCC moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the district court held there was federal-question jurisdiction.
- The district court concluded the waiver issue could raise a substantial federal question under Grable but ultimately granted summary judgment for LWCC.
- The appellate court held lack of jurisdiction; reversing the summary judgment and rendering dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grable-style federal-question jurisdiction exists | Venable asserts waiver of § 933(g) creates a federal issue | LWCC contends waiver is a defense, not a basis for federal jurisdiction | No federal-question jurisdiction under Grable |
| Whether the case falls under diversity or supplemental jurisdiction | Venables rely on broader federal bases | LWCC and Venables are Louisiana citizens; no independent basis | Lack of diversity; §1367 does not apply as claims are not from same nucleus of operative fact |
| Whether admiralty jurisdiction applies under § 1333 | Venables raise maritime-related claims against LWCC | LWCC’s conduct occurred off navigable waters and is not maritime | No admiralty jurisdiction over LWCC claims |
| Whether ancillary jurisdiction permits enforcement of settlement | Venables rely on Kokkonen to compel LWCC’s consent | Kokkonen does not apply; no settlement agreement to enforce | No ancillary jurisdiction to compel third party consent |
Key Cases Cited
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (U.S. 2005) (substantial federal issue must arise in state-law claim; well-pleaded complaint rule governs)
- Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (U.S. 1908) (well-pleaded-complaint rule; federal issue must be an element of the claim)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (ancillary jurisdiction requires an independent basis; settlement enforcement limits)
- Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (federal defenses cannot defeat state-law claims; jurisdictional limits)
- Bell v. Schexnayder, 36 F.3d 447 (5th Cir. 1994) (retention of jurisdiction over settlements—distinguishable when no agreement exists)
- Miller v. Griffin-Alexander Drilling Co., 873 F.2d 809 (5th Cir. 1989) (limits on expanding admiralty jurisdiction; location-related concerns)