Santee v. Oceaneering Int'l, Inc.

95 F.4th 917

Shanon Roy SANTEE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED;Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Incorporated;Chevron USA, Incorporated, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 23-20095

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

FILED March 12, 2024

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, USDC No. 4:21-CV-3489, David Hittner, U.S. District Judge

Andrew R. Gould, Kurt B. Arnold, Attorney, Brian Christensen, Arnold & Itkin, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Thomas Clark Wright, Raffi Melkonian, Kelley Clark Morris, Wright, Close & Barger, L.L.P., Michael John Wray, Esq., Litigation Counsel, Squire Patton Boggs (US), L.L.P., Houston, TX, Alejandro Mendez-Roman, Attorney, Thomas R. Nork, Esq., Nork Mendez, P.L.L.C., The Woodlands, TX, for Defendant-Appellee Oceaneering International, Incorporated.

Thomas Clark Wright, Raffi Melkonian, Kelley Clark Morris, Wright, Close & Barger, L.L.P., Robert L. Klawetter, Eastham, Watson, Dale & Forney, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Incorporated.

Thomas Clark Wright, Raffi Melkonian, Kelley Clark Morris, Wright, Close & Barger, L.L.P., Michael Anthony Golemi, Esq., Liskow & Lewis, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee Chevron USA, Incorporated.

Before Stewart, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Carl E. Stewart, Circuit Judge:

In this maritime personal injury case, Plaintiff Shanon Roy Santee ("Santee") appeals the district court's denial of his motion to remand and grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants Oceaneering International, Inc. ("Oceaneering"), Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. ("Transocean"), and Chevron USA, Inc. ("Chevron") (collectively, "Defendants"). For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.

I. FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

From 1999 to 2021, Santee worked in the offshore drilling industry as a remote-operated vehicle ("ROV") technician. ROVs are submersible machines that provide underwater visibility for offshore drilling operators and service areas unreachable by human divers. ROV technicians operate the ROVs from a command center aboard the vessel and typically service the vessel for a twenty-one-day or twenty-eight-day period. During his career, Santee worked primarily for Oceaneering, a company that provides subsea engineering and exploration services. After 2016, he worked mostly aboard the M/V Deepwater Conqueror, a drillship serviced by Transocean, an offshore drilling contractor.¹ Chevron contracted with Oceaneering and Transocean to provide underwater exploration and drilling services.

In January 2021, Santee allegedly sustained a severe injury to his shoulder and neck while servicing an ROV onboard the Deepwater Conqueror in service to the Chevron contract. Santee's injury occurred while he was replacing a thirty-pound cursor pin on a launch and recovery system ("LARS"), a device that releases and recaptures ROVs from the water. The cursor pins hold the ROV in place during the ROV repair process. To conduct this routine maintenance, the ROV technicians raise the LARS device with a hydraulic power unit, then climb a ladder to reach the port for the cursor pins. From that position, the technician then reaches up with one hand to install the pin. During this motion, Santee alleged that he felt a "pop" and sharp pain in his right shoulder. Santee averred that his condition worsened after his injury and required surgical fusion of the vertebrae in his neck.

In September 2021, Santee filed suit against Defendants in Texas state court. He brought claims under the Jones Act, general maritime law, and the Saving to Suitors Clause, under theories of negligence and unseaworthiness against Defendants. Defendants then removed the action to the Southern District of Texas, asserting that federal question jurisdiction, general admiralty jurisdiction, and original jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ("OCSLA") governed Santee's claims.

Santee moved to remand the case to state court, arguing that his claims were not removable because he is a "seaman" under the Jones Act. Defendants countered that Santee fraudulently pleaded his Jones Act claims, thus providing the district court with exclusive jurisdiction under OCSLA. In his reply, Santee further asserted that Defendants waived their fraudulent pleading argument because it was not raised in their notice of removal. The district court denied Santee's motion and held that he had fraudulently pleaded his Jones Act claim to avoid removal because he was not a seaman at the time of his injury. It further held that it had original jurisdiction under OCSLA because the Deepwater Conqueror was attached to a seabed of the Outer Continental Shelf ("OCS") at the time Santee was injured. The district court denied Santee's motion for reconsideration.

After the close of discovery, Defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court granted Oceaneering's motion for summary judgment on the basis that Santee could not maintain a claim for negligence against his employer as a matter of law because he was not a Jones Act seaman. Santee then filed motions to compel discovery and for a continuance of the summary judgment submission date. The district court denied both requests. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Transocean and Chevron because it had determined that Santee was not a seaman, and thus was bound to the exclusive remedy provisions of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ("LHWCA"). It further held that Santee's unseaworthiness claim against Transocean was barred under the LHWCA because he was not a Jones Act seaman. The district court also granted summary judgment on Santee's negligence and unseaworthiness claims against Chevron due to the lack of evidence of operational control and ownership of the drillship. Santee timely appealed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court reviews "both the denial of a motion to remand and the grant of summary judgment de novo." Sanchez v. Smart Fabricators of Tex., L.L.C., 997 F.3d 564, 568 (5th Cir. 2021) (en banc). Summary judgment is appropriate if the record evidence shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). "Unsubstantiated assertions, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation are not sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment." See Brown v. City of Houston, 337 F.3d 539, 541 (5th Cir. 2003). "[R]easonable inferences are to be drawn in favor of the non-moving party." Robinson v. Orient Marine Co., 505 F.3d 364, 366 (5th Cir. 2007).

III. DISCUSSION

On appeal, Santee raises five assignments of error. He challenges the district court's denial of his motion to remand and each of the summary judgments in favor of Oceaneering, Transocean, and Chevron. In the alternative, Santee asserts that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance to collect more evidence to oppose Transocean's and Chevron's motions for summary judgment. We address each issue in turn, beginning with the motion to remand.

A. MOTION TO REMAND

The Jones Act provides "a seaman" a cause of action for negligence against his seafaring employer. 46 U.S.C. § 30104. However, only seamen may bring Jones Act claims. Such claims filed in state court generally are "not subject to removal to federal court." Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438, 455, 121 S.Ct. 993, 148 L.Ed.2d 931 (2001) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1445(a), which bars removal of certain suits involving railroads, is incorporated into the Jones Act). However, a Jones Act claim that is "fraudulently pleaded," or pleaded where there is a strong likelihood that the plaintiff will not be able to prove seaman status, may be removed if there is an independent basis of federal jurisdiction. Hufnagel v. Omega Serv. Indus., Inc., 182 F.3d 340, 345 (5th Cir. 1999). Thus, remand is inappropriate where "resolving all disputed facts and ambiguities in current substantive law in plaintiff's favor, the court determines that the plaintiff has no possibility of establishing a Jones Act claim on the merits." Holmes v. Atl. Sounding Co., 437 F.3d 441, 445 (5th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added) (citation omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 568 U.S. 115, 133 S.Ct. 735, 184 L.Ed.2d 604 (2013). If a party is not a Jones Act seaman, then his only remedy lies in the form of compensation benefits under the LHWCA. Becker v. Tidewater, Inc., 335 F.3d 376, 386 (5th Cir. 2003); 33 U.S.C. §§ 904, 905(a).

The Supreme Court has established a two-pronged test to determine whether a party is a seaman under the Jones Act. McDermott Int'l, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337, 354-55, 111 S.Ct. 807, 112 L.Ed.2d 866 (1991). To be a seaman: (1) the plaintiff's duties must contribute to the function or mission of the vessel, and (2) the plaintiff must have a connection to the vessel or fleet of vessels that is substantial in duration and in nature. See id.; Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 368, 115 S.Ct. 2172, 132 L.Ed.2d 314 (1995). In Sanchez v. Smart Fabricators of Texas, L.L.C., our en banc court enumerated additional factors relevant to the second prong of the seaman test. 997 F.3d at 574. The court posed the factors in the form of the following three questions:

(1) Does the worker owe his allegiance to the vessel, rather than simply to a shoreside employer?

(2) Is the work sea-based or involve seagoing activity?

(3) (a) Is the worker's assignment to a vessel limited to performance of a discrete task after which the worker's connection to the vessel ends, or (b) Does the worker's assignment include sailing with the vessel from port to port or location to location?

Id. (footnote omitted).

Considering these questions posed in Sanchez, the district court held that two of the three factors weighed against Santee. It posited that...