Fifth Circuit Allows ABS to Remove From State to Federal Court Under Federal Officer Removal Statute

Krell v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, No. 24-20438, 2025 WL 2491129 (5th Cir. Aug. 29, 2025).

By Arthur A. Crais, Adjunct Professor of Law

This opinion was just released by the Fifth Circuit this afternoon.

           This suit arose out of the capsizing of SEACOR Power in April 2021, which occurred during a violent thunderstorm shortly after it departed from Port Fourchon in Louisiana. The capsizing resulted in the deaths of numerous seamen on board. Their personal representatives and those injured filed suit in Texas state court against the American Bureau of Shipping and other ABS entities (ABS collectively hereinafter). ABS sought to remove the suit to federal court. The claimants filed to remand the matter to state court, which was granted, and ABS appealed.

           In a per curiam opinion of the appeals court (Judges Stewart, Clement, and Wilson), the panel reversed the district court and held that ABS qualified under the Federal Officer Removal Statute to remove the suit to federal court. It gave five reasons that ABS was “acting under” the U.S. Coast Guard's direction for purposes of the statute:

           First, it “helps the [USCG] perform a job that, ‘in the absence of a contract. . . the [USCG] itself would have had to perform.’”

           Second, § 3316 requires the USCG to maintain “an office that conducts comprehensive and targeted oversight of” ABS and any other “recognized organizations,” with the ability to audit them.

           Third, there are numerous statutes and regulations that convey an express delegation of authority to ABS to act on behalf of the USCG.

           Fourth, the USCG has adopted a rule deeming that “[d]elegated functions performed by, and statutory certificates issued by [Registered Organizations] will be accepted as functions performed by, or certificates issued by” the USCG. 46 C.F.R. § 8.130(a).

           Fifth, ABS satisfies the standard for “acting under” a federal officer's direction that this court recently set forth in Caris MPI, Inc. v. UnitedHealthcare, Inc., 108 F.4th 340 (5th Cir. 2024). See 108 F.4th at 347–48.

           The matter was remanded.