Pittman v. Port Allen Marine Services, Civ. A. No. 91-385-B.

• Decision Date: 01 May 1992
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 91-385-B.
• Citation: 1993 AMC 357,794 F. Supp. 593
• Parties: Eugene E. PITTMAN, et al. v. PORT ALLEN MARINE SERVICES, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana

794 F. Supp. 593

1993 AMC 357

Eugene E. PITTMAN, et al. v. PORT ALLEN MARINE SERVICES, et al.

Civ. A. No. 91-385-B.

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana.

May 1, 1992.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

John W. deGravelles, Baton Rouge, La., Patrick W. Pendley, Trial Atty., Plaquemine, La., for plaintiffs.

Hal C. Welch, Trial Atty., Kent B. Ryan, New Orleans, La., for Port Allen Marine Service, Inc.

Thomas G. Buck, Metairie, La., for Avondale Industries.

Laura K. Austin, Preis & Kraft, Lafayette, La., for Port Allen River Plant, Inc.

W.J. Darzelere, Jr., T. Justin Simpson, Metairie, La., for Hollywood Marine, Inc.

RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND

POLOZOLA, District Judge.

This suit was originally filed in state court as an "admiralty or general maritime claim under federal law"¹ by Eugene E. Pittman.² Plaintiff contended in the state court petition that he was injured while working aboard a barge floating in navigable waters.

The defendants timely removed this suit to federal court. Defendants argue that their removal is proper because plaintiff's claim is cognizable only in admiralty thereby giving rise to exclusive federal jurisdiction. Defendants contend that plaintiff designated the state court lawsuit as an admiralty and general maritime claim pursuant to article 1732(6) of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure thereby invoking the original and exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of the federal court. This matter is now before the Court on motion to remand that was timely filed by plaintiff.

This case presents a most difficult legal issue to the Court which apparently is res nova. Because of its complexity, the Court believes it is necessary to discuss and analyze various issues pertaining to the jurisdiction of the federal court in admiralty proceedings. Specifically, the Court must determine the conditions under which federal courts exercise exclusive jurisdiction over admiralty actions. The Court must also ascertain whether plaintiff has plead in the state court petition a claim based on admiralty or general maritime law or whether plaintiff seeks in the state court suit a remedy at law pursuant to the "saving to suitors" clause. Finally, the Court must consider whether the removal was proper.

Federal district courts have exclusive and original jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime cases.³ The cornerstone of this rule is incorporated in Article III, § 2, cl. 1 of the United States Constitution which provides in relevant part that "the judicial power of the United States shall extend ... to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction."

The statutory corollary to Article III of the United States Constitution, 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1), confers upon federal courts the "exclusive jurisdiction over claims under the general maritime law."⁴ However, this general rule is modified by the "saving to suitors" clause found in § 1333(1).⁵ The "saving to suitors" clause originally was intended to "save" for the litigant "the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it."⁶ The rule has now been interpreted to allow a plaintiff in a personal injury suit which is cognizable in admiralty to bring a civil action in state court or to bring an action "at law" in federal court if diversity of citizenship exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.⁷ Under either situation, the courts have held that the "saving to suitors" clause does no more than preserve the right of maritime suitors to pursue non-maritime remedies.⁸ Indeed, the courts have found that the saving to suitors clause does not guarantee plaintiffs a non-federal forum.⁹

When Article III was adopted, the framers of the Constitution included the phrase "all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction" for very specific purposes. The federal court's jurisdiction over non-maritime cases arising ashore was limited. The framers also sought to preclude a revival of instances whereby common law courts encroached upon the Court's admiralty jurisdiction as was done earlier in England when separate systems of courts were maintained.¹⁰ The exclusive reservation of admiralty jurisdiction to federal courts means that only federal courts may exercise the powers of a court of admiralty in trying such cases.¹¹ Therefore, state court judges may not sit "in admiralty."

The language employed in the state court petition is cited to determine whether the federal court has exclusive jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim. As noted earlier, plaintiff stated in his state court action that his claims were "admiralty or maritime claims under federal law." Although plaintiff has stated his claims to be "admiralty or maritime claims under federal law," he does not set forth any federal statute or law to support the allegation. General admiralty or maritime claims do not arise under federal law although such claims are cognizable in federal court.¹²

The confusion surrounding plaintiff's designation of the claims as admiralty or maritime claims under federal law is heightened by the fact that he also stated in the state court petition that this is a "saving to suitors" case. A claimant who holds an in personam claim under the admiralty jurisdiction of federal courts may choose to bring a suit at law in state court. However, the "saving to suitors" clause does not permit a party to bring an admiralty action in state court thereby creating an admiralty side in the state court. A party is allowed to bring an action at law in state court which may also constitute an admiralty action in federal court only if the action is filed at law and not in admiralty. Such a distinction is very significant because of the jurisdictional limits which Article III and 28 U.S.C. § 1333 place upon state courts to entertain actions brought in admiralty.

The Court's ability to determine the relief sought by the plaintiff is hampered by the different pleading requirements set forth in the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure requires a plaintiff to plead the facts of the case without asserting the legal basis of relief in the initial petition.¹³ However, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a party to plead the basis of the federal court's subject matter jurisdiction in the complaint.¹⁴ Louisiana pleading rules do not require such a designation because state courts are courts of general jurisdiction while federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Moreover, Rule 9(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically applies to "admiralty and maritime claims." Under Rule 9(h), a party may designate a claim "that is also within the jurisdiction of the district court on some other ground" as a claim "within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction" of the Court.¹⁵ Further, Rule 9(h) provides that if "the claim is cognizable only in admiralty, it is an admiralty or maritime claim for those purposes whether so identified or not."

The Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure now gives a plaintiff the right to preclude a defendant from seeking a jury trial if the plaintiff specifically designates the suit as an admiralty or general maritime claim.¹⁶ The petition filed by the plaintiff in state court appears to be an attempt by plaintiff to keep the defendant from seeking a trial by jury. Plaintiff's petition provides in part:

"This is a suit on an admiralty or general maritime claim under federal law that is brought in state court under the Federal `Savings to Suitors' Clause for purposes of Article 1732(6) of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure."

The amendment to article 1732(6) of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure was adopted by the Louisiana legislature in 1988. The purpose behind the amendment to article 1732(6) is to provide state court maritime plaintiffs with the statutory right to control whether the parties will have a right to a trial by jury. In essence, article 1732(6) permits a party to bring an action "in admiralty" in state court.

To conclude that this is a "saving to suitors" case simply because of plaintiff's designation does not resolve the issue before the Court. It is the relief sought by a plaintiff and not the designation he makes in his state court petition that is important.¹⁷ Louisiana has sought through the passage of article 1732(6) to provide the same method of trial in state court for maritime litigants that is afforded by a federal court exercising admiralty jurisdiction. The question that must be resolved is whether Louisiana's guarantee of a non-jury trial to maritime litigants "is a remedy which the common law is competent" to give within the meaning of the "saving to suitors" clause.

In Lavergne v. Western Co. of North America, Inc.,¹⁸ the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that a party's right to a jury trial was one of the remedies saved to a party under the "saving to suitors" clause. The Louisiana Supreme Court has also reaffirmed that in Louisiana the right to trial by jury is fundamental in character and courts should indulge in every presumption against a waiver, loss, or forfeiture of that right.¹⁹ A party's right to a trial by jury was the remedy saved by the "saving to suitors" clause. Article 1732(6) eliminates this remedy by giving the plaintiff the sole right to determine whether a defendant may request a jury trial.

Whether a suit filed pursuant to article 1732(6) invokes the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of federal courts has generated a split of authority among the federal district courts in Louisiana which have decided the issue. The Western District of Louisiana has ruled that a declaration made pursuant to article 1732(6) is a "Rule 9(h) declaration".²⁰ Under the Western District of Louisiana analysis, "the plaintiff essentially seeks a remedy in admiralty which the common law is not competent to give but which lies within the maritime jurisdiction reserved exclusively to the federal sovereign under the United States Constitution."...