In the Matter of: Antill Pipeline Construction Company, Inc.
Filing
979
ORDER and REASONS that this matter be tried to the Court without a jury. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 01/11/2013.(Reference: All Cases)(kac, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT
OF ANTILL PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION CO.,
INC.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 09‐3646 & consol. cases
Pertains to: All Cases
SECTION ʺCʺ (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
This matter comes before the Court on the request of Antill Pipeline Construction
Co., Inc. (“Antill”) for trial before a jury. Having reviewed the record, the memoranda
of counsel and the law, the Court rules as follows.
Antill asserts a Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury because punitive
damages, which most claimants here have sought, are “quasi‐criminal.” Rec. Doc. 977.
The key part of that assertion, however, is the “quasi‐”; the Sixth Amendment only
“‘relate[s] to prosecutions which are strictly criminal in their nature.’” Tull v. United
States, 481 U.S. 412, 419 (1987) (quoting United States v. Regan, 232 U.S. 37 (1914)).
Antill also asserts a right to trial by jury because it claims that the Court has
diversity jurisdiction concurrent with its admiralty jurisdiction here. Rec. Doc. 971. Yet
Antill has consistently asserted 28 U.S.C. § 1333, not § 1332, as its jurisdictional basis.
Indeed, the previously submitted proposed pre‐trial order itself contains no mention of
diversity jurisdiction. Rec. Doc. 955. Antill’s claim that diversity jurisdiction exists is
simply incorrect, and regardless, the eve of trial is far too late in the day for Antill to
assert a new jurisdictional basis that could materially alter the trial of this case as well as
the law.
Antill’s final argument for a jury trial here, based on an assertion that jurisdiction
is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, Rec. Doc. 971, is refuted by the very authorities its
supplemental memorandum cites. Rec. Doc. 977, p. 2 (quoting Churchill v. The F/V Fjord,
892 F.2d 763, 772 (9th Cir. 1988)); Churchill, 892 F.2d at 769 (explaining that “Appellants
assert that the pendent state law claim . . . entitles them to a trial by jury”; noting that
“[t]he district court rejected this argument, citing the Fifth Circuitʹs opinion in
Tallentire”; and affirming). In any event, whatever (if any) right to a jury that claimants
might have on this basis, it is not Antill’s right to assert.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that this matter be tried to the Court without a jury.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 11th day of January, 2013.
________________________________________
HELEN G. BERRIGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?