Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Harbor Docking & Towing Company, LLC v. Rolls Royce Marine North America, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division

November 19, 2014

HARBOR DOCKING & TOWING COMPANY, LLC,
v.
ROLLS ROYCE MARINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., ET AL

MEMORANDUM RULING

KATHLEEN KAY, Magistrate Judge.

Before the court is a motion to remand [doc. 29] filed by plaintiffs Harbor Docking and Towing Company, LLC, and Point Comfort Towing, Inc. (hereinafter "plaintiffs"). The motion is opposed by defendants Caterpillar Inc., and Atain Specialty Insurance Company (hereinafter "defendants").

For the following reasons, plaintiff's motion to remand is GRANTED.

Background

This action was originally filed by plaintiffs in the 14th Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana. Doc. 1, att. 4, pp. 13-20. In their petition plaintiffs seek recovery for alleged for breach of contract and negligent design, construction, and repair of two tugboats owned by the plaintiffs. Id.

Defendants removed the suit to this court alleging jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333 (admiralty jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (the removal statute). Doc. 1. Defendants submit that plaintiffs' claims are subject to admiralty tort jurisdiction and removal is allowed under the amended version of § 1441.

Plaintiffs do not dispute that their negligence claims are admiralty tort claims but they argue that removal is not proper under § 1441. Plaintiffs assert that, in order to remove a state court maritime action, defendants must establish an independent basis for federal court jurisdiction other than admiralty jurisdiction. Since defendants do not allege any other basis for jurisdiction, plaintiffs seek remand.

Law and Analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), any civil action over which the federal district court has original jurisdiction is removable, unless otherwise specified by an Act of Congress. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over "[a]ny civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled."

Prior to the amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which took effect in 2012, general maritime claims were not removable on the basis of admiralty jurisdiction unless a separate basis for federal court jurisdiction exited. In re Dutile, 935 F.2d 61, 62-62 (5th Cir. 1991). In December of 2011, § 1441 was amended giving rise to defendants' argument that the amendment made maritime claims removable.

The former version of § 1441 stated the following, in pertinent part:

(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending. For purposes of removal under this chapter, the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded.
(b) Any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties. Any other such action shall be removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.

Under the former version of the removal statute, the Fifth Circuit viewed § 1441(b) as limiting the removal of maritime claims. The Fifth Circuit routinely held that maritime claims did not "aris[e] under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States" and thus, fell within the category of "[a]ny other [civil] action." Id. at 63. Thus, in the absence of a separate basis for federal jurisdiction, these claims were ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.