Fluor Ocean Services, Inc. v. Rucker Company, Civ. A. No. 72-366.
| Citation | 341 F. Supp. 757 |
| Decision Date | 28 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 72-366. |
| Parties | FLUOR OCEAN SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. The RUCKER COMPANY, Inc., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
E. Harold Saer, Jr., New Orleans, La., for plaintiff.
Herschel L. Abbott, Jr., New Orleans, La., for defendant.
On January 7, 1972, plaintiff filed suit in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), defendant Rucker filed a petition for removal to this court, alleging original jurisdiction under 43 U.S.C. § 1333(b). The plaintiff moves to remand, on the ground this court lacks jurisdiction.
The suit arises out of a contract between plaintiff and defendant in which plaintiff agreed to furnish certain barges, equipment, and personnel to defendant for use in raising a Shell Oil Co. drilling platform. The platform had sunk to the floor of the outer Continental Shelf as a result of damage by Hurricane Camille. Before then, the platform had been used in oil and gas exploration under a lease from the United States, acting through the Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, to the Shell Oil Co. Section 6 of the lease requires the lessee, Shell Oil Co., to remove from the premises all structures, machinery, equipment, tools, and materials not needed for producing wells upon the expiration of the lease.
According to the defendant's affidavits the Halliburton unit was salvaged from the ocean floor in usable condition and will again be used in oil and gas exploration. The same is true of the engine package that formed a part of the drilling platform. The remainder of the drilling platform was not salvaged in usable condition.
Jurisdiction of the United States district courts under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act is set forth in Section 1333(b) of Title 43 of the United States Code:
The United States district courts shall have original jurisdiction of cases and controversies arising out of or in connection with any operations conducted on the outer Continental Shelf for the purpose of exploring for, developing, removing or transporting by pipeline the natural resources, or involving rights to the natural resources of the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf, and proceedings with respect to any such case or controversy may be instituted in the judicial district in which any defendant resides or may be found, or in the judicial district of the adjacent State nearest the place where the cause of action arose.
The issue presented by the motion to remand is whether this is a case "arising out of or in connection with any operations conducted on the outer Continental Shelf for the purpose of exploring for, developing, removing or transporting by pipeline the natural resources." The question appears to be one of first impression.
That the suit involves a controversy within the scope of Section 1333(b) is indicated by two factors: 1) The Halliburton unit and the engine package will again be used in oil and gas exploration, possibly on the outer Continental Shelf; and 2) The contract was undertaken in furtherance of the requirements of a lease, granted for the purpose of developing the natural resources of the outer Continental Shelf.
But should these factors be insufficient themselves to establish jurisdiction, there are other policy reasons for denying the motion to remand. As pointed out in defendant's excellent supplemental memorandum, the intent of Congress to make activities on the outer Continental Shelf...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tidelands Royalty B Corp. v. Gulf Oil Corp., CA 3-79-0244-R.
...Act" over dispute involving construction of offshore drilling platform on the Outer Continental Shelf); Fluor Ocean Services, Inc. v. Rucker Co., 341 F.Supp. 757 (D.C.La.1972) (federal district court had jurisdiction over controversies which are only indirectly connected with the "developme......
-
Gulf Offshore Company v. Mobil Oil Corporation
...courts exercise exclusive jurisdiction over controversies arising from operations on the Shelf. See Fluor Ocean Services, Inc. v. Rucker Co., 341 F.Supp. 757, 760 (E.D.La.1972). This argument is premised on a perceived incompatibility between exclusive federal sovereignty over the Outer Con......
-
Holcomb v. ERA Helicopters, Inc.
...in any controversy having even an indirect connection with operations on the outer Continental Shelf. See Fluor Ocean Services, Inc. v. Rucker Co., 341 F.Supp. 757, 760 (E.D.La.1972). In considering whether the character of the allegations set forth in plaintiffs' complaints present a subst......
-
Tennessee Gas Pipeline v. Houston Cas. Ins. Co.
...removing or transporting" the natural resources of the OCS).25 EP Operating, 26 F.3d at 569 (quoting Fluor Ocean Servs., Inc. v. Rucker Co., 341 F.Supp. 757, 760 (E.D.La.1972)).26 Recar, 853 F.2d at 369.27 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).28 Sea Robin, 844 F.2d at 1210.29 Recar, 853 F.2d at 369.30 Id. (......
-
Offshore Windfarms: What Laws Apply?
...(138) Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. [section] 1337 (2005). (139) Id. (140) Fluor Ocean Servs., Inc. v. Rucker Co., 341 F. Supp. 757, 759-60 (E.D. La. 1972) (stating "a broad, not a narrow, reading of this grant [referring to 43 U.S.C. [section] 1333] is supported by the clear......