Mark Ryan went into cardiac arrest during drilling operations to control a damaged well that was blowing gas off the coast of Port Harcout, Nigeria. Ryan subsequently passed away. Ryan’s widow, Jonnie Ryan, filed suit in state court in Harris County, Texas alleging, among other claims, claims under the Death on the High Seas Act, general maritime law and the Sieracki seaman doctrine. Defendant, Wild Well Control, Inc., removed the case on the grounds that, according to the clear language of amended 28 U.S.C. § 1441, plaintiff’s claims fall within the federal court’s original jurisdiction. Generally, claims founded solely upon general maritime law are not removable due to the “Saving to Suitors” clause.
Under the prior version of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), the Court reasoned, actions that were not “founded on a claim or right under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States,” such as claims arising under general maritime law, were removable only if no defendant was a citizen of the State in which the action was brought. The Court noted that under the new version of 28 U.S.C. § 1441, subsection (b) was deleted. The amended version of 28 U.S.C. § 1441 allows removal of all claims that fall within the federal court’s original jurisdiction without any other caveats or restrictions. Under the clear and unambiguous language of amended § 1441, claims under general maritime law fall within a federal district court’s original jurisdiction and are therefore removable even absent complete diversity of the parties.
Noting longstanding Fifth Circuit precedent, the Court held it “has no need to and will not defer to extrinsic aids or legislative history” when the language of a statute is unambiguous. The Court held that under the amendment, federal district courts may exercise removal jurisdiction over claims for which they have original jurisdiction unless an act of Congress prohibits that exercise of jurisdiction. Due to its deletion in the 2011 amendment, Section 1441(b), however, is no longer an “Act of Congress” prohibiting that exercise in admiralty cases involving non-diverse parties.
The Court, despite over two hundred years of jurisprudence to the contrary, allowed removal of plaintiff’s general maritime law, DOHSA and Sieracki seaman claims pursuant to amended 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The case is likely to be appealed to the Fifth Circuit, where the Fifth Circuit will have to address whether general maritime law claims remain are now removable without regard to an alternative basis for removal in light of the amended removal statute.
Ryan v. Hercules Offshore, Inc., 2013 WL 1967315 (S.D. Tex. 5/13/13)
Author: Jeffrey Siemann