AMERICAN DREDGING CO. v. MILLER
| Decision Date | 23 February 1994 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
AMERICAN DREDGING CO. v. MILLER
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 91-1950. Argued November 9, 1993-Decided February 23,1994
Mter respondent was injured while working as a seaman on a tug operating on the Delaware River and owned by petitioner, a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey, he filed this action in a Louisiana state court pursuant to the "saving to suitors clause," 28 U. S. C. § 1333(1), seeking damages under the Jones Act, 46 U. S. C. App. § 688, and relief under general maritime law. The trial court granted petitioner's motion to dismiss under the doctrine offorum non conveniens, holding that it was bound to apply that doctrine by federal maritime law. The Court of Appeal affirmed, but the Supreme Court of Louisiana reversed, holding that a state statute rendering the doctrine of forum non conveniens unavailable in Jones Act and maritime law cases brought in state court is not pre-empted by federal maritime law.
Held: In admiralty cases filed in a state court under the Jones Act and the "saving to suitors clause," federal law does not pre-empt state law regarding the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Pp. 446-457.
(a) In exercising in personam jurisdiction over maritime actions under the "saving to suitors clause," a state court may adopt such remedies, and attach to them such incidents, as it sees fit, so long as those remedies do not "wor[k] material prejudice to the characteristic features of the general maritime law or interfer[e] with the proper harmony and uniformity of that law in its international and interstate relations." Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205,216. Pp.446-447.
(b) Because forum non conveniens did not originate in admiralty or have exclusive application there, but has long been a doctrine of general application, Louisiana's refusal to apply it does not work "material prejudice to [a] characteristic featur[e] of the general maritime law" within Jensen's meaning. Pp.447-450.
(c) Nor is forum non conveniens a doctrine whose uniform application is necessary to maintain "the proper harmony" of maritime law under Jensen, 244 U. S., at 216. The uniformity requirement is not absolute; the general maritime law may be changed to some extent by state legislation. See ibid. Forum non conveniens is in two respects quite dissimilar from any other matter that this Court's opinions have held to be pre-empted by federal admiralty law: First, it is a sort of venue rule-procedural in nature-rather than a substantive rule upon
444
which maritime actors rely in making decisions about how to manage their business. Second, it is most unlikely ever to produce uniform results, since the doctrine vests great discretion in the trial court, see, e. g., Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U. S. 235, 257, and acknowledges multifarious factors as being relevant to its application, see Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U. S. 501,508-509. Pp.450-455.
(d) The foregoing conclusion is strongly confirmed by examination of federal legislation. The Jones Act permits state courts to apply their local forum non conveniens rules. See 46 U. S. C. App. § 688(a); Missouri ex rel. Southern R. Co. v. Mayfield, 340 U. S. 1,5. This supports the view that maritime commerce in general does not require a uniform rule on the subject. The implication of the Court's holding in Bainbridge v. Merchants & Miners Transp. Co., 287 U. S. 278, 280-281-that although § 688(a) contains a venue provision, Jones Act venue in state court should be determined in accordance with state law-is that federal venue rules in maritime actions are a matter of judicial housekeeping, prescribed only for the federal courts. Pp. 455-457.
595 So. 2d 615, affirmed.
SOUTER, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 457. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, post, p. 458. KENNEDY, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined, post, p. 462.
Thomas J. Wagner argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Whitney L. Cole.
Timothy J. Falcon argued the cause for respondent.
With him on the brief were Stephen M. Wiles, John Hunter, and James A. George.
John F. Manning argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Days, Assistant Attorney General Hunger, and Acting Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler. *
* Lizabeth L. Burrell and George W Healy III filed a brief for the Maritime Law Association of the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal.
445
This case presents the question whether, in admiralty cases filed in a state court under the Jones Act, 46 U. S. C. App. § 688, and the "saving to suitors clause," 28 U. S. C. § 1333(1), federal law pre-empts state law regarding the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
Respondent William Robert Miller, a resident of Mississippi, moved to Pennsylvania to seek employment in 1987. He was hired by petitioner American Dredging Company, a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey, to work as a seaman aboard the MV John R., a tug operating on the Delaware River. In the course of that employment respondent was injured. After receiving medical treatment in Pennsylvania and New York, he returned to Mississippi where he continued to be treated by local physicians.
On December 1, 1989, respondent filed this action in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Louisiana. He sought relief under the Jones Act, which authorizes a seaman who suffers personal injury "in the course of his employment" to bring "an action for damages at law," 46 U. S. C. App. § 688(a), and over which state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction. See Engel v. Davenport, 271 U. S. 33, 37 (1926). Respondent also requested relief under general maritime law for unseaworthiness, for wages, and for maintenance and cure. See McAllister v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 357 U. S. 221, 224 (1958) ().
The trial court granted petitioner's motion to dismiss the action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, holding that it was bound to apply that doctrine by federal maritime law. The Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Fourth District affirmed. 580 So. 2d 1091 (1991). The Supreme Court of Louisiana reversed, holding that Article 123(C) of the Louisi-
ana Code of Civil Procedure, which renders the doctrine of forum non conveniens unavailable in Jones Act and maritime law cases brought in Louisiana state courts, is not preempted by federal maritime law. 595 So. 2d 615 (1992). American Dredging Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which we granted. 507 U. S. 1028 (1993).
The Constitution provides that the federal judicial power "shall extend ... to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction." U. S. Const., Art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Federalcourt jurisdiction over such cases, however, has never been entirely exclusive. The Judiciary Act of 1789 provided:
"That the district courts shall have, exclusively of the courts of the several States ... exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction ... within their respective districts as well as upon the high seas; saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it." § 9, 1 Stat. 76-77 (emphasis added).
The emphasized language is known as the "saving to suitors clause." This provision has its modern expression at 28 U. S. C. § 1333(1), which reads (with emphasis added):
We have held it to be the consequence of exclusive federal jurisdiction that state courts "may not provide a remedy in rem for any cause of action within the admiralty jurisdiction." Red Cross Line v. Atlantic Fruit Co., 264 U. S. 109, 124 (1924). An in rem suit against a vessel is, we have said,
distinctively an admiralty proceeding, and is hence within the exclusive province of the federal courts. The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411, 431 (1867). In exercising in personam jurisdiction, however, a state court may" 'adopt such remedies, and ... attach to them such incidents, as it sees fit' so long as it does not attempt to make changes in the 'substantive maritime law.'" Madruga v. Superior Court of Cal., County of San Diego, 346 U. S. 556, 561 (1954) (quoting Red Cross Line, supra, at 124). That proviso is violated when the state remedy "works material prejudice to the characteristic features of the general maritime law or interferes with the proper harmony and uniformity of that law in its international and interstate relations." Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205, 216 (1917). The issue before us here is whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens is either a "characteristic feature" of admiralty or a doctrine whose uniform application is necessary to maintain the "proper harmony" of maritime law. We think it is neither.1
Under the federal doctrine of forum non conveniens, "when an alternative forum has jurisdiction to hear [a] case, and when trial in the chosen forum would 'establish ... op-
IJUSTICE STEVENS asserts that we should not test the Louisiana law against the standards of Jensen, a case which, though never explicitly overruled, is in his view as discredited as Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45 (1905). See post, at 458-459. Petitioner's pre-emption argument was primarily based upon the principles established in Jensen, as repeated in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. City of S. Portland
... ... to Dismiss, and Answer On February 6, 2015, Portland Pipe Line Corporation (PPLC) and the American Waterways Operators (AWO) (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed a nine-count complaint in this Court ... Id. At the July 21, 2014 meeting of the South Portland City Council, public commenter Ed Miller, Vice President for Public Policy for the American Lung Association in Maine stated: The air ... Pls.' Reply at 22. PPLC points to American Dredging Co. v. Miller , 510 U.S. 443, 114 S.Ct. 981, 127 L.Ed.2d 285 (1994) and Ballard Shipping Co. v ... ...
-
De Csepel v. Republic of Hungary
... ... codified the restrictive principle of sovereign immunity, limiting the jurisdiction of American courts to hear claims against foreign states. Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677, 691, ... Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 453, 114 S.Ct. 981, 127 L.Ed.2d 285 (1994). The burden is on the ... ...
-
Agudas Chasidei Chabad v. Russian Federation
... ... relied on by the defendants that "[w]hile takings of property without compensation violate American public policy regardless of the nationality of the property owner, they violate international law ... See Am. Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 453, 114 S.Ct. 981, 127 L.Ed.2d 285 (1994) (noting that the doctrine ... ...
-
Kedy v. A.W. Chesterton Co.
... ... of judicial functions." Paxton Blair, The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in Anglo-American Law, 29 Colum. L.Rev. 1, 1 (1929) ... The doctrine of forum non conveniens ... conveniens grounds, "even if jurisdiction and proper venue are established." American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 447-48, 114 S.Ct. 981, 127 L.Ed.2d 285 (1994) (quoting Piper ... ...
-
'Forum Non Conveniens': How To Avoid The Tide Of Lawsuits Brought By Foreign Nationals
...Tim, S.A. v. Schumacher, 418 F. Supp. 2d 529, 533 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). 3 330 U.S. 501, 508-09 (1947). 4 American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 448 5 454 U.S. 235 (1981). 6 Id. at 255 n. 22. 7 Id. 8 Id. at 252. 9 Id. at 257. 10 Id. at 258-59. 11 Id. at 260. 12 Id. at 261. 13 Corporocion ......
-
Second Circuit Might Reconsider Forum Non Conveniens And Foreign Arbitration Awards
...Award on procedural grounds, such as the forum non conveniens. Monegasque, 311 F. 3d at 496 (relying on Am. Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 US 443, 453, (1994), which classifies the forum non conveniens as Other jurisdictions, however, such as the DC Circuit, have held the opposite, finding tha......
-
Oil and Water Do Not Mix: An Argument for the United States Supreme Court's Deferral to Congress in Exxon v. Baker
...95 (quoting New Jersey v. New York, 283 U.S. at 348). 42 Id. at 95 n.34. 43 Field, supra note 38, at 962. 44 Am. Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 455 (1994). 45 Nw. Airlines, Inc. , 451 U.S. at 96. 46 See Field, supra note 38, at 886. Professor Martha Field, amongst other scholars, sim......
-
Human Rights After Kiobel: Choice of Law and the Rise of Transnational Tort Litigation
...v. Sealaska Corp., 705 P.2d 905, 908 (Alaska 1985).337. N.Y. C.P.L.R. Law § 327(b) (McKinney 2010).338. Am. Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 455 (1994). 339. See Wos v. E.M.A. ex. rel. Johnson, 133 S. Ct. 1391, 1400 (2013) ("In our federal system, there is no question that States posse......
-
Antitrust Issues In The Ocean Shipping Industry
...than substantive, and when application of a federal rule is unlikely to produce uniform results. See American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 453 (1994). Neither of these is the case with respect to the antitrust exemption of the Shipping Act. 111. 46 U.S.C. § 40307(a)(3); see A&E Pac......
-
Jurisdiction's noble lie.
...80-89 and related text. (79.) See Shaffer, 433 U.S. at 201-02. (80.) Lear, supra note 27, at 1148 (citing American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 457 (1994)); see also Judith Resnick, Housekeeping: The Nature and Allocation of Work in Federal Trial Courts, 24 GA. L. REV. 909 (1990). ......