Opinion
CASE NO. 20-60650-CIV-SMITH
2020-06-23
Dawn WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. AQUACHILE, INC., et al., Defendants.
Todd Stephen Stewart, The Law Offices of Todd S. Stewart, PA, Jupiter, FL, for Plaintiff. Joseph J. Goldberg, Samuel E. Basch, Cole, Scott & Kissane P.A., Miami, FL, for Defendant St. James Smokehouse, Inc. Naim Shakir Surgeon, Akerman LLP, Miami, FL, for Defendant Aquachile, Inc.
Todd Stephen Stewart, The Law Offices of Todd S. Stewart, PA, Jupiter, FL, for Plaintiff.
Joseph J. Goldberg, Samuel E. Basch, Cole, Scott & Kissane P.A., Miami, FL, for Defendant St. James Smokehouse, Inc.
Naim Shakir Surgeon, Akerman LLP, Miami, FL, for Defendant Aquachile, Inc.
ORDER OF REMAND
RODNEY SMITH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motions for Remand [DE 4], Defendant St James Smokehouse, Inc.’s Response [DE 13], and Plaintiff's Reply [DE 16]. Defendant St. James Smokehouse, Inc. (St. James) removed this action from state court on the basis of the Court's admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff seeks remand because she has chosen to bring her claims in personam and at law and therefore the Court does not have admiralty jurisdiction. Because the parties cannot create subject matter jurisdiction where there is none, the Motion for Remand is granted.
I. The Complaint and Procedural Background
Plaintiff filed her five-count Complaint in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida. The Complaint alleges that Defendants are fish suppliers who supplied fish to Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines (RCCL). The fish supplied to RCCL was contaminated with Ciguatera and contained Ciguatoxin at levels sufficient to cause human illness. While on an RCCL cruise, Plaintiff was served the ciguateric fish and became ill. Plaintiff's Complaint makes claims against all three Defendants for: (1) strict liability, (2) negligence; (3) violation of sections 500.04 and 500.10 of the Florida Statutes, (4) breach of implied warranty, and (5) breach of express warranty.
Defendant St. James removed this action alleging the Court has jurisdiction based on language in the cruise ticket between Plaintiff and RCCL and the Court's maritime jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1). Specifically, St. James stated in the Notice of Removal that this "Court has original, and exclusive jurisdiction, over this proceeding pursuant to Section 9 of the Cruise/Cruisetour Ticket Contract," and as such, removal is proper and warranted in accordance with § 1441(a)." DE 1, ¶ 14. Section 9 of the Cruise/Cruisetour Ticket Contract ("Ticket") states, in relevant part:
It is agreed by and between passenger and carrier that all disputes and matters whatsoever arising under, in connection with or incident to this agreement, passenger's cruise, cruisetour, land tour or transport, shall be litigated, if at all, in and before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, U.S.A., (or as to those lawsuits to which the federal courts of the United States lack subject matter jurisdiction, before a court located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, U.S.A.) to the exclusion of the Courts of any other states, territory of country. Passenger hereby consents to jurisdiction and waives any venue or other objection that he may have to any such action or proceeding brought in the applicable court located in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
DE 1-3 at 14.
There are no allegations in the Complaint that this action is brought in admiralty. The Complaint does not allege any breaches of the Ticket. Further, Plaintiff alleges that she is a Florida resident and Defendants are Florida corporations and a Florida limited liability company. II. STANDARD
"On a motion to remand, the removing party bears the burden of showing the existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction." Conn. State Dental Ass'n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 591 F.3d 1337, 1343 (11th Cir. 2009). Thus, Defendant bears the burden of showing that this Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction and that removal was proper. When a court evaluates "whether the particular factual circumstances of a case give rise to removal jurisdiction, [it] strictly construe[s] the right to remove and appl[ies] a general presumption against the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such that all uncertainties as to removal jurisdiction are to be resolved in favor of remand." Scimone v. Carnival Corp. , 720 F.3d 876, 882 (11th Cir. 2013) (internal citation and quotation marks removed). A federal court has original jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Whether a claim arises under federal law is ordinarily determined by looking at the face of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint. Conn. State Dental Ass'n , 591 F.3d at 1343.
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff argues that remand is appropriate because she has chosen to bring her claim in personam and at law. Thus, the Court does not have admiralty or maritime jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333. St. James maintains that removal was proper because of the maritime nature of the claim and because of the Ticket.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1), the district courts "have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of ... [a]ny civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled." 28 U.S.C. § 1331(1). The Eleventh Circuit has explained:
Under the savings-to-suitors clause, a plaintiff in a maritime case alleging an in personam claim has three options: (1) the plaintiff may file suit in federal court under admiralty jurisdiction ...; (2) the plaintiff may file suit in federal court under diversity jurisdiction; or (3) the plaintiff may file suit in state court. See Atl. & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Ellerman Lines, 369 U.S. 355, 360, 82 S. Ct. 780, 783–84, 7 L.Ed.2d 798 (1962) ; Madruga v. Superior Court of State of Cal. in and for San Diego County, 346 U.S. 556, 560–61, 74 S. Ct. 298, 300–01, 98 L. Ed. 290 (1954) ; In re Chimenti, 79 F.3d 534, 537 (6th Cir. 1996).
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Lago Canyon, Inc. , 561 F.3d 1181, 1187 n.13 (11th Cir. 2009).
Multiple courts have held that the savings-to-suitors clause prevents removal when the plaintiff seeks a state law remedy, even if the plaintiff could have brought the action in federal court under admiralty jurisdiction. See, e.g., Oklahoma ex rel. Edmondson v. Magnolia Marine Transp. Co. , 359 F.3d 1237, 1241 (10th Cir. 2004) ; In re Chimenti , 79 F.3d 534, 537 (6th Cir. 1996) (stating that "Courts have consistently interpreted the ‘saving clause’ to preclude removal of maritime actions brought in state court and invoking a state law remedy, provided there is no independent federal basis for removal, such as diversity jurisdiction."). Additionally, "under the reasoning of Romero [v. International Terminal Operating Company , 358 U.S. 354, 79 S.Ct. 468, 3 L.Ed.2d 368 (1959) ], a federal district court should not accept the removal of a saving clause case solely because of its general maritime nature: the maritime nature simply does not provide a ground for federal jurisdiction." Armstrong v. Alabama Power Co. , 667 F.2d 1385, 1388 (11th Cir. 1982) ; see also DeRoy v. Carnival Corp., No. 1:18-CV-20653-UU, 2018 WL 2316643, at *5 (S.D. Fla. May 22, 2018) (stating "it is well-settled that maritime claims that could be brought in admiralty [but have not been] do not confer federal question jurisdiction."). Plaintiff brought her Complaint based on state law remedies in state court; despite this, St. James removed. Her Complaint does not allege facts that would support another basis for removal such as diversity jurisdiction. Thus, removal was improper and remand is appropriate.
St. James argues that Plaintiff brought the same claims against RCCL in this Court and even attempted to add St. James and the other Defendants as defendants in the RCCL case. However, in the RCCL case, Plaintiff chose to proceed pursuant to the Court's admiralty jurisdiction, specifically alleging in her amended complaint that the Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333. See Case No. 19-21991, DE 9. Here, Plaintiff has not chosen to invoke admiralty jurisdiction. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, the plaintiff is the master of her claim and federal jurisdiction exists only when it is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams , 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987) ; Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr. for S. Cal. , 463 U.S. 1, 10, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983) (stating that "a defendant may not remove a case to federal court unless the plaintiff's complaint establishes that the case ‘arises under’ federal law." (italics in original)). No basis for federal jurisdiction appears on the face of Plaintiff's Complaint.
St. James also argues that the Ticket, issued by RCCL to Plaintiff, is a maritime contract. While Defendants are not parties to the Ticket, St. James argues that terms of the Ticket also apply to it. Thus, according to St. James, because Plaintiff and Defendants are subject to the provisions of a maritime contract, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff argues that the terms of the Ticket do not apply. Further, Plaintiff has not alleged any claims under the terms of the Ticket. The fact that the terms of the Ticket may arise as a defense in this matter is not a basis for removal. See Franchise Tax Bd. , 463 U.S. at 10-11 & n.9, 103 S.Ct. 2841 (stating that original jurisdiction exists only if a federal right or immunity is an essential element of the plaintiff's cause of action and the fact that a federal question likely would arise during litigation is not sufficient to confer federal jurisdiction); see also Armstrong , 667 F.2d at 1388. Consequently, removal was not appropriate.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's Motions for Remand [DE 4] is GRANTED .
2. This matter is REMANDED to the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 23rd day of June, 2020.