Judicial Interpretation of the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act

Judicial Interpretation of the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act 

By: Max Schellenberg

Edited by: Tiffany Morales

In re Foss Maritime Co., No. 5:12–CV–00021–TBR, 2014 WL 2930860 (W.D. Ky. 2014)In In re Foss Maritime Co., the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky sought to determine the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011(“ FCJVCA”) impact on the jurisdiction of a federal court to remove an admiralty case filed in state court under the savings to suitors clause, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1333(1). In the subject case, the Delta Mariner, a ship owned and operated by the plaintiff, Foss Maritime Company (“Foss”), allided with a bridge owned by the defendant, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (“KYTC”), resulting in significant damage to both the vessel and bridge. Foss alleged the bridge lacked proper lighting and sought redress through the court system.Foss filed a limitation action in the Western District seeking complete exoneration, or in the alternative, a limitation of its liability for the allision pursuant to the Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. Sec. 30501 et seq. In response, KYTC also filed an action in state court seeking reimbursement for the damages sustained by the bridge. Subsequently, Foss sought to remove KYTC’s state court action to federal court, which was then consolidated with the limitation action.In the opinion, the court wrestled with language of the FCJVCA and the underlying congressional intent that brought about the amendment. The language of the two statutes differs, as the current version is limited to removal based solely on diversity. As such, Foss asserted, the removal statute no longer differentiates between claims “arising under the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States” and “other such actions.”The trial judge acknowledged the different conclusions reached by the federal district courts, which have wrestled with the amendment to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441(b).Judge Russel found that the legislative history of the FRCJVA evidenced no Congressional intent to alter the removability of maritime claims filed in state court under the saving to suitors clause. Noting that the plaintiff requested a trial by jury and permitting removal would deny the plaintiff its right to a jury.The court held that absent another independent basis of federal jurisdiction, federal courts may not interfere with a party’s choice of forum in an action brought about under the savings to suitors clause.Look for our matrix of the decisions on this hot topic which will be published here in the near future.