Removal Jurisdiction – Joinder, Diversity of Citizenship, and OCSLA

Removal Jurisdiction – Joinder, Diversity of Citizenship, and OCSLA

By: Emily Hall

Edited by: Tiffany Morales

Hammond v. Phillips 66 Co., 2015 WL 630918, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17227  (S.D. Miss. 2/12/15)Wendell Hammond brought suit against Phillips 66 Company and several other defendants in the Circuit Court of Marion County, Mississippi, alleging general maritime negligence, defective manufacture, defective design, strict liability, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. These charges were all brought in relation to Hammond developing asbestosis and related lung disease due to his frequent exposure to drilling and mud additives that were sold by each defendant.In April of 2014, Hammond’s general maritime claims were dismissed via the state court’s Agreed Order. In July, Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP (CPChem), a successor to Phillips 66 Company, removed the proceeding to federal court. CPChem predicates the removal on 43 U.S.C. 1349(b)(1), the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), and on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332.CPChem argues OCSLA jurisdiction exists because Hammond claims to have once worked on a semi-submersible that engaged in mineral exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf. Even though two joined defendants share Mississippi citizenship with Hammond, CPChem claims diversity jurisdiction and that the Mississippi defendants were improperly joined. Hammond filed a Motion to Remand, challenging the existence of diversity jurisdiction and jurisdiction under OCSLA.The court granted Hammond’s Motion to Remand, stating that diversity jurisdiction did not exist and there was no jurisdiction under OSCLA. Asbestosis develops slowly after years of breathing in fibers. Of his ten years working in the oil industry, Hammond only spent nine months offshore. Thus, the court did not find the “but-for” requirement of OCSLA jurisdiction met since Hammond was only working on the Outer Continental Shelf for nine months. Further, CPChem provided no evidence to support a finding that Hammond developed asbestosis in the nine months he worked offshore.While CPChem claimed the two Mississippi defendants had been improperly joined because Hammond had no possibility of recovery against them under Mississippi law, the court found that diversity jurisdiction did not exist because the action was not between citizens of different states.  Because it could not be proven that those Defendants did not supply mud to rigs where Hammond worked and would have been exposed to it, the court found that recovery could be possible from the two Mississippi Defendants. Thus, they were properly joined, defeating diversity jurisdiction.However, in Ronquille v. Aminoil Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123224; 2014 WL 4387337 (E.D. La., Sept. 4, 2014), the court denied remand of a suit brought by a worker at a land based terminal where at least part of the work, though performed on a land based terminal, arose in connection with offshore operations. This work consisted of the loading and unloading of barges, other boats, and trucks transporting equipment and pipe from Outer Continental Shelf platforms.