Duet v. Falgout Offshore, LLC
Glenn Duet (Duet) was a captain on a supply boat, the M/V Minnie Falgout. He was employed by Falgout Offshore, LLC (Falgout) and Minnie Falgout, LLC (Minnie). While working aboard the vessel, Duet slipped and fell on a slippery petroleum-based substance on the deck and sustained injuries; the third time Duet has sustained injuries aboard the M/V Minnie Falgout this way. When Duet was injured, his vessel was alongside an offshore platform owned by Nabors Offshore Corp., a third-party defendant.
Duet filed suit against the defendants alleging that his injuries were the result of negligence for failing to furnish a safe workplace. He later amended his original complaint so that he could characterize his claim as one in admiralty under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(h) seeking monetary damages, maintenance and cure, attorney fees, and compensatory damages. In response to the plaintiff's claims, Falgout filed an answer and counter-claim against Duet. Also, Falgout filed a third-party complaint against Nabors.
Never in Duet's amended complaint and Falgout's counter-claim, answer, or third-party claim did either party request a jury trial. Third-party defendant Nabors, however, demanded a trial by jury on all issues in its answers to the third-party complaint and the amended complaint. Duet filed a motion to strike the jury trial demand alleging that the matter is purely maritime, no diversity of jurisdiction exists, and that he pled the matter as proceeding under Rule 9(h). In response, Nabors argues that Duet's claims are governed by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). While Duet's injuries occurred on the vessel, Nabors argues that it was a combination of vessel and platform-activities that caused his injuries thus OCSLA governs and therefore Nabors is entitled to make its jury demand.Does a third-party defendant have a right to a jury trial when the plaintiff elects to proceed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(h)?
When a Plaintiff designates his claims under admiralty and maritime jurisdiction under Rule 9(h) he invokes his right to a non-jury trial. As such, the defendant has no right to have claims under admiralty and maritime jurisdiction tried by a jury. Further, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 14(c) a defendant may, as a third-party plaintiff, bring in a third party defendant who may be partially or wholly liable to the plaintiff. If a third-party plaintiff wants to bring in a third-party defendant into an admiralty law action, however, the Fifth Circuit requires the third-party plaintiff to assert a claim against the third-party defendant in admiralty. If third-party defendant is then properly within the admiralty jurisdiction of the court pursuant to Rule 9(h) and Rule 14 (c) his claims are not triable by jury.
Therefore, the underlying issue is whether the court's jurisdiction over Nabors arises out of federal maritime law or the OCSLA. If it's the former, Nabors is precluded from electing a trial by jury; but, if it is the latter, state law applies as surrogate federal law if (1) the controversy arises on a situs covered by OCSLA (i.e. the subsoil seabed, or artificial structures permanently or temporarily attached thereto), (2) federal maritime law must not apply of its own force, and (3) the state law must not be inconsistent with Federal law.
Specifically at issue here is whether federal maritime law applies by its own force. In maritime tort actions, the Supreme Court has outlined a two part test: the loci and nexus test. The first part of the test asks whether the tort occurred on navigable water. The second part of the test raises two issues. First the court must assess the general features of the type of incident involved to determine if it has a potential impact on maritime commerce. Second, the court asks whether the activity giving rise to the incident shows a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity.
Here, the parties do not dispute that the first prong of the test is satisfied since Duet was injured on a vessel in navigable waters. The court then turned to the second prong of the maritime tort jurisdiction analysis. Relying on binding precedent, the court held that maritime courts have consistently held that worker injuries can have a disruptive impact on maritime commerce. Specifically, the court relied on the fact that Duet was the captain of the vessel to satisfy the first prong of the second part of the test. Finally, the court turned to traditional maritime activity analysis. It explained that this element covers any activities traditionally undertaken by vessels. The court found that employing a captain on a vessel and allegedly failing to furnish a safe workplace upon that vessel constitute activities with a substantial relationship to maritime activity.
Thus, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to strike the third-party defendant's jury trial demand because federal maritime law applies.A party seeking to invoke federal admiralty jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(1) over a tort claim must satisfy conditions both of location and of connection with maritime activity.
<< PREVNEXT >>
