Recar v. CNG Producing Co., 87-3711
| Decision Date | 29 August 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-3711,87-3711 |
| Citation | 853 F.2d 367 |
| Parties | Thomas P. RECAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CNG PRODUCING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Summary Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Joseph J. Weigand, Jr., Weigand, Weigand & Meyer, Houma, La., for plaintiff-appellant.
Mark J. Spansel, Deborah B. Rouen, Adams & Reese, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, WILLIAMS and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
The district court determined that it had no subject matter jurisdiction over Thomas P. Recar's action to recover damages for injuries he sustained on the Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico and dismissed his suit. We conclude that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act vests the court with jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly we reverse and remand.
The appellant, Thomas P. Recar, was employed by Land & Offshore Company as a maintenance crew foreman. Recar and his crew had been engaged for some time in repairing and painting platforms that CNG Producing Company (CNG) owned on the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico. CNG had hired the M/V GRADY FAGAN to transport the crew from platform to platform, and Recar and his crew ate and slept aboard this vessel. Additionally, Recar spent a large part of his work time aboard the GRADY FAGAN, monitoring the crew's work. On the morning of November 28, 1985, Recar alleges that he was swinging from a CNG platform to the GRADY FAGAN when the rope broke, causing Recar to fall to the deck of the GRADY FAGAN and injure his neck. Recar filed suit against CNG claiming jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). At a pretrial conference, the district court determined that its only basis for subject matter jurisdiction was in admiralty. Recar was given the opportunity to amend his complaint to assert admiralty jurisdiction, but he declined to do so. The district court then dismissed the action without prejudice, and Recar appealed from that order.
Recar contends that the district court should have accepted jurisdiction of his action under the OCSLA, which provides [T]he district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of cases and controversies arising out of, or in connection with (A) any operation conducted on the Outer Continental Shelf which involves exploration, development, or production of the minerals, of the subsoil of the seabed of the Outer Continental Shelf, or which involves rights to such minerals....
43 U.S.C. Sec. 1349(b)(1).
Recar's argument requires us to consider two questions: (1) does the OCSLA give federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate actions arising under the Act, and (2) does the OCSLA apply to Recar's action.
This court answered the first question in Laredo Offshore Constructors, Inc. v. Hunt Oil Co., 754 F.2d 1223 (5th Cir.1985). In that case, Laredo sued Hunt to recover the contract price for constructing a stationary platform twenty-five miles off the Louisiana coast in the Gulf of Mexico. Hunt defended on grounds that the work was improperly performed. Laredo sought to invoke the admiralty jurisdiction of the court. The district court concluded that it had no admiralty jurisdiction and dismissed the action. On appeal, we agreed that the court had no admiralty jurisdiction but concluded that "because the OCSLA vests district courts with original jurisdiction over cases and controversies arising out of any operation conducted on the Outer Continental Shelf involving the exploration, development, or production of natural resources, we find that the district court is empowered to hear the case." Id. at 1233.
We also agree with Recar that he has alleged facts that bring his case within the provisions of OCSLA. As indicated above, Recar, at the time of his injury was working as the foreman of a maintenance crew engaged in painting and repairing production platforms which were built and maintained for the purpose of producing oil and gas from wells previously drilled. The reach of OCSLA is broad and includes cases "arising out of or in connection with any operation conducted on the Outer Continental Shelf which involves ... production of the minerals...." 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1349(b)(1). Section 1331(m) provides further that "the term 'production' means those activities which take place after the successful completion of any means of the removal of mineral including ... maintenance...." Thus, the question narrows to whether Recar's injury, that occurred while he was overseeing the repair and maintenance of the platform, arises out of the production of minerals on the Outer Continental...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delaware v. BP Am. Inc.
...not argue that Plaintiff would not have been injured "but for" Defendants’ operations on the OCS.25 See generally Recar v. CNG Producing Co. , 853 F.2d 367, 369 (5th Cir. 1988) (finding plaintiff's activities fall within scope of OCSLA because plaintiff "would not have been injured ‘but for......
-
Bonnette v. Shell Offshore, Inc.
...while being transferred from the fixed platform on which he worked to a vessel. The court, based on its analysis of Recar v. CNG Producing Co., 853 F.2d 367 (5th Cir.1988) and the fact that the plaintiff's state court petition was filed under the "Laws of Louisiana," found that OCSLA applie......
-
Barker v. Hercules Offshore, Inc.
...exploring for, developing, or producing resources therefrom.” Id. § 1333(a)(1); accord id. § 1349(b)(1); see also Recar v. CNG Producing Co., 853 F.2d 367, 370 (5th Cir.1988) (acknowledging that “OCSLA invests [a] district court with original federal question jurisdiction.”). The jurisdicti......
-
Hufnagel v. Omega
...under OCSLA. We apply a broad "but-for" test to determine whether a cause of action arises under OCSLA. See Recar v. CNG Producing Co., 853 F.2d 367, 369 (5th Cir. 1988). In Recar, we held that OCSLA applied to a personal injury suit brought by a platform worker when a rope from which he wa......
-
CHAPTER 3 THE TEXAS AND LOUISIANA ANTI-INDEMNITY STATUTES AS APPLIED TO OFFSHORE OIL & GAS INDUSTRY CONTRACTS
...v. Gray, 361 F.2d 432 (5th Cir. 1966) 118, 178, 377 Pure Oil Co. v. Snipes, 293 F.2d 60 (5th Cir. 1961) 248 Recar v. CNG Producing Co., 853 F.2d 367 (5th Cir. 1988) 137 Reding v. Texaco, 598 F.2d 513 (9th Cir. 1979) 55 Richendollar v. Diamond M Drilling Co., Inc., 819 F.2d 124 (5th Cir.), c......