Bynum v. Patterson Truck Lines, Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 September 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-3963,80-3963 |
| Citation | 655 F.2d 643 |
| Parties | Curtis T. BYNUM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PATTERSON TRUCK LINES, INC., Atchafalaya Industries, Inc., U. S. Steel Corporation and Ohio Barge Line, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. Summary Calendar. . Unit A |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
John P. Keegan, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant.
Waitz, Downer & Best, Huntington B. Downer, Jr., Houma, La., for Patterson.
Mouton, Roy, Carmouche, Bivins & Hill, Ralph E. Kraft, Lafayette, La., for Atchafalaya.
Burke & Mayer, Joseph P. Tynan, New Orleans, La., for U. S. Steel & Ohio Barge.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before GEE, GARZA and TATE, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff Bynum appeals from the dismissal of his suit to recover from non-employer defendants for tortious injuries sustained at work on a barge. The sole issue raised by his appeal questions the district court's denial of a jury trial as sought by him.
Bynum now concedes that federal jurisdiction is based upon the maritime nature of the cause of action, 1 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1). He does not dispute the lack of right to a jury trial in an admiralty or maritime claim, Fed.R.Civ.P. 38(e). However, Bynum contends that, because of the "savings to suitors" clause of § 1333(1), he is nevertheless entitled to a jury trial of the negligence cause of action pleaded, since two of the defendants were of citizenship diverse from his. We affirm the denial of a jury trial, finding that there is no diversity jurisdiction (permitting trial by jury) and that federal jurisdiction of his claim is exclusively based upon the maritime character of the cause of action asserted.
By original and supplemental petitions, Bynum sues four defendants to recover for personal injuries resulting from their negligence while he was working for his employer as a harbor worker aboard a barge. His cause of action is based upon third-party negligence, a recovery recognized as allowable in federal court by Section 905(b) of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. Nevertheless, federal jurisdiction of Section 905(b) claims is based upon general maritime law, 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1), not independently upon Section 905(b)'s statutory recognition of the right of recovery; and accordingly, assertion in federal court of a Section 905(b) claim confers no more right to a jury trial than does any other claim asserted in federal court by reason of its maritime jurisdiction. Russell v. Atlantic and Gulf Stevedores, 625 F.2d 71 (5th Cir. 1980) (see note 1 supra).
Bynum contends, however, that because of the diversity of citizenship of two of the defendants he is entitled also to assert jury-triable diversity jurisdiction of his negligence action against them by virtue of the "saving to suitors" clause of 28 U.S.C § 1333(1). 2 As summarized by Gilmore and Black, The Law of Admiralty 37 (2d ed. 1975), the effect of this clause "is that a suitor who holds an in personam claim, which might be enforced by suit in personam in admiralty, may also bring suit, at his election, in the 'common law' court that is, by ordinary civil action in state court, or in federal court without reference to 'admiralty', given diversity of citizenship and the requisite jurisdictional amount."
The flaw in Bynum's argument is that, since two of the defendants are citizens of the same state (Louisiana) as he, the requisites of diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, are not met: In order to sustain diversity jurisdiction, there must be complete diversity between each defendant and each plaintiff. Owen Equipment and Erection Company v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 2402-03, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978); 13 Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 3605 (1975). 3 By virtue of this requirement, diversity jurisdiction as a basis for jury trial is ineffectual as asserted against the two diverse defendants, since two non-diverse defendants are also joined upon a cause (or causes) of action arising...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Efferson v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., Civ. A. No. 91-3326
...reaffirmed by the Fifth Circuit in Brown v. Mine Safety Appliances Co., 753 F.2d 393 (5th Cir. 1985). See also Bynum v. Patterson Truck Lines, Inc., 655 F.2d 643 (5th Cir.1981); Lowe v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, A Div. of Litton, 723 F.2d 1173 (5th Cir.1974); Forbes v. A & P Boat Rentals, Inc.,......
-
Young v. Armadores de Cabotaje, S.A.
...federal courts to hear LHWCA cases by virtue of the "saving to suitors" clause of 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1333(1); Bynum v. Patterson Truck Lines, Inc., 655 F.2d 643 (5th Cir.1981); Allen v. Keeney, 442 So.2d 1171 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 445 So.2d 1232 (La.1984). State courts apply th......
-
92-71 La.App. 3 Cir. 2/23/94, Butler v. Zapata Haynie Corp.
...with federal courts to hear LHWCA cases by virtue of the 'saving to suitors' clause of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1333(1); Bynum v. Patterson Truck Lines, Inc., 655 F.2d 643 (5th Cir.1981); Allen v. Keeney, 442 So.2d 1171 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 445 So.2d 1232 (La.1984). State courts apply ......
-
Harville v. Johns-Manville Products Corp.
...113, 117 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 906, 97 S.Ct. 1175, 51 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977); see also Bynum v. Patterson Truck Lines, Inc., 655 F.2d 643, 644 n. 1 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981). The basic holding of these cases is that Section 5(b), rather than creating a new cause of action, merely ......