Brown v. Porter

149 F.Supp.3d 963

John J. Brown, Plaintiff,

v.Ralph Gerald Porter, Jr. a/k/a Ralph “Bud” Porter, Defendant.

15 C 8482

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

Signed February 12, 2016

Michael David Fisher, Michael Charles Terranova, Goldberg Weisman Cairo, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

David William Porter, Chilton Yambert Porter LLP, Geneva, IL, Joseph R. Vallort, Chilton Yambert Porter LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Gary Feinerman, United States District Judge

John Brown brought this suit against Ralph Porter in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, after he was injured on a boat piloted by Porter. Doc. 1-1. Porter timely removed the suit to this court, citing the admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Doc. 1. Brown has moved to remand the suit to state court, arguing that it does not fall within the admiralty jurisdiction and that, even if it did, § 1333's “saving-to-suitors” clause precludes its removal. Doc. 13. The motion is granted and the case is remanded to state court.

Background

The complaint's well-pleaded facts are assumed true at this stage of the proceeding. On August 7, 2013, Brown was a passenger on a boat that Porter was piloting on the waters of Lake Michigan between Navy Pier and the 31st Street Harbor. Doc. 1-1 at ¶¶ 1-2. Porter drove unreasonably fast and tried to jump waves, causing the boat to bounce violently. Id. at ¶ 4. Because Porter failed to warn Brown to brace himself, Brown was thrown around the boat's cabin and sustained severe injuries. Id. at ¶¶ 4-6.

Discussion

As noted, Brown offers two grounds for remand. First, he contends that this suit does not fall within the § 1333 admiralty jurisdiction. Doc. 18 at 1-4. Second, he argues that even if it did, § 1333's saving-to-suitors clause precludes its removal. Id. at 5-7. Brown is wrong on the first ground but right on the second.

I. This Case Falls Within the § 1333 Admiralty Jurisdiction

The Constitution extends the federal judicial power “to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Congress codified that power in § 1333, which confers jurisdiction on the district courts over “[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. § 1333(1). Until relatively recently (from an admiralty law perspective), tort litigants could invoke the admiralty jurisdiction whenever the incident at issue occurred on navigable waters: “The historic view of [the Supreme] Court ha[d] been that the maritime tort jurisdiction of the federal courts is determined by the locality of the accident and that maritime law governs only those torts occurring on the navigable waters of the United States.” Victory Carriers, Inc. v. Law , 404 U.S. 202, 205, 92 S.Ct. 418, 30 L.Ed.2d 383 (1971).

But in Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland , 409 U.S. 249, 93 S.Ct. 493, 34 L.Ed.2d 454 (1972), the Supreme Court jettisoned the locality test for one also requiring the alleged tort to “bear a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity.” Id. at 268, 93 S.Ct. 493. The Court observed that the significant relationship test was “more sensible and more consonant with the purposes of maritime law than ... a purely mechanical application of the locality test,” which hypothetically would allow “a swimmer at a public beach [who] is injured by another swimmer” to invoke the admiralty jurisdiction.

Id. at 255, 261, 93 S.Ct. 493. In Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. , 513 U.S. 527, 115 S.Ct. 1043, 130 L.Ed.2d 1024 (1995), the Court explained that the significant relationship test has both a location requirement and a connection-to-maritime-activity requirement:

[A] party seeking to invoke federal admiralty jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) over a tort claim must satisfy conditions both of location and of connection with maritime activity. A court applying the location test must determine whether the tort occurred on navigable water or whether injury suffered on land was caused by a vessel on navigable water. The connection test raises two issues. A court, first, must assess the general features of the type of incident involved to determine whether the incident has a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce. Second, a court must determine whether the general character of the activity giving rise to the incident shows a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity.

Id. at 534, 115 S.Ct. 1043 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Brown concedes that the locality requirement is satisfied here, as the alleged tort occurred on a boat on Lake Michigan. Doc. 18 at 4. As for the connection requirement, Brown cannot plausibly dispute that Porter's piloting a boat on Lake Michigan had a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity. But as to the second component of the connection requirement, Brown contends that Porter's alleged negligence “could have no conceivable impact on interstate maritime commerce.” Ibid.

Sisson v. Ruby , 497 U.S. 358, 110 S.Ct. 2892, 111 L.Ed.2d 292 (1990), illustrates how the disruptive-impact component of the connection requirement is applied. A pleasure yacht docked at a marina on Lake Michigan caught fire, damaging several neighboring vessels and the marina. See id. at 360, 110 S.Ct. 2892. In rejecting the contention that the fire had only a minimal potential effect on maritime commerce, the Court explained:

We determine the potential impact of a given type of incident by examining its general character. The jurisdictional inquiry does not turn on the actual effects on maritime commerce of the fire on Sisson's vessel ; nor does it turn on the particular facts of the incident in this case, such as the source of the fire or the specific location of the yacht at the marina, that may have rendered the fire on the Ultorian more or less likely to disrupt commercial activity. Rather, a court must assess the general features of the type of incident involved to determine whether such an incident is likely to disrupt commercial activity .

Id. at 363, 110 S.Ct. 2892 (emphases added). Describing the incident as “a fire on a vessel docked at a marina on navigable waters,” the court concluded that it had a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce because the fire could have “spread to nearby commercial vessels or make the marina inaccessible to such vessels.” Id. at 362–63, 110 S.Ct. 2892.

Another cogent illustration comes from Jerome B. Grubart, a case arising from the Great Chicago Flood of 1990, which occurred when the collapse of a freight tunnel's walls allowed water from the Chicago River to flow into the tunnel and surrounding buildings. 513 U.S. at 530, 115 S.Ct. 1043. The Court reasoned that the disruptive-impact component of the connection-to-maritime-activity requirement turned “on a description of the incident at an intermediate level of possible generality.” Id. at 538, 115 S.Ct. 1043. Characterizing the flood as “damage by a vessel in navigable water to an underwater structure,” the Court held the disruptive-impact component was met, as “damaging a structure beneath the riverbed could lead to a disruption in the water course itself” and “could lead to restrictions on the navigational use of the waterway during required repairs.” Id. at 539, 115 S.Ct. 1043. The Court's focus in Sisson and Jerome B. Grubart on possible rather than actual consequences echoed Foremost Insurance Co. v. Richardson , 457 U.S. 668, 102 S.Ct. 2654, 73 L.Ed.2d 300 (1982), which involved a collision of two pleasure boats on the Amite River in Louisiana, and where the Court held that the “potential disruptive impact of a collision between boats on navigable waters” was present regardless of whether the boats themselves were engaged in commerce or used for leisure. Id. at 669, 675, 102 S.Ct. 2654.

In light of these precedents, the alleged tort in this case satisfies the disruptive-impact component of the connection requirement. Described at an intermediate level of generality, the incident involved the negligent operation of a vessel on navigable waters. Porter's alleged behavior could have adversely impacted maritime commerce in any number of ways: his boat could have crashed into another boat or a pier; other vessels may have altered their course or ceased moving entirely to avoid a potential collision; or a passenger could have been flung overboard, requiring rescue teams to close off a portion of the lake. Brown correctly observes that none of these things actually happened. Doc. 18 at 4 (noting that this case “does not involve a collision between multiple boats” and “at no point did the boat crash into any sea wall”). That is irrelevant—as noted, all that matters is that the conduct had the potential to disrupt maritime commerce, and the negligent operation of a boat on open water clearly has that potential.

It is true that Foremost Insurance, the case involving a collision of two pleasure boats, cautioned that “[n]ot every accident in navigable waters that might disrupt maritime commerce will support federal admiralty jurisdiction,” but it did so to underscore the necessity of the accident arising out of traditional maritime activity. 457 U.S. at 675 n. 5, 102 S.Ct. 2654 (distinguishing its facts from those in Executive Jet, where “the sinking of the plane in navigable waters did not give rise to a claim in admiralty even though an aircraft sinking in the water could create a hazard for the navigation of commercial vessels in the vicinity”). Here, the operation and navigation of a boat on Lake Michigan bears a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity. Accordingly, because the alleged tort (1) occurred on a navigable waterway, (2) had the potential to disrupt maritime commerce, and (3) arose from an activity bearing a substantial relationship to traditional maritime...