Great Northern & Southern Navigation Co LLC French America Line v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London

Filing 90

ORDER DENYING 62 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. FURTHER ORDERED that the 63 Renewed Motion to Remand to State Court is GRANTED. This action is REMANDED to the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson. Signed by Judge Wendy B Vitter on 11/12/2019. (jeg) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/13/2019: # 1 Remand Letter) (jeg).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

GREAT NORTHERN & SOUTHERN
NAVIGATION CO. LLC FRENCH AMERICA LINE

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 18-4665-WBV-KWR

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS
AT LLOYD’S, LONDON , ET AL.

SECTION D(4)
ORDER

Before the Court is the Motion to Certify the Court’s March 29, 2019 Order for
Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (R. Doc. 62), filed by Defendant
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London. That motion is opposed.1 Also before the
Court is the Renewed Motion to Remand to State Court (R. Doc. 63), filed by Plaintiff
Great Northern & Southern Navigation Co. LLC French America Line. That motion
is also opposed.2 For the reasons that follow, and after review of the memoranda and
the applicable law, the Motion to Certify the Court’s March 29, 2019 Order for
Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (R. Doc. 62) is DENIED, and
the Renewed Motion to Remand to State Court (R. Doc. 63) is GRANTED.

1
2

See R. Docs. 66, 74.
See R. Doc. 65.

I.

Background

This is a marine contract case. Defendant Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s,
London Subscribing to Policy Number B0621MFALL000216 (“Underwriters”) issued
a Marine Hull and War insurance policy to Plaintiff.3 Plaintiff seeks to recover under
that policy, claiming that the policy covers certain alleged failures of the sewage
system on the M/V LOUISIANE that occurred in October 2016.4 Plaintiff seeks to
recover for repairs and other losses that occurred as a result of the alleged incident.5
On March 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed this action in the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District
Court for the Parish of Jefferson, alleging claims for breach of contract and statutory
claims for bad faith. On May 7, 2018, Defendant Underwriters timely filed a Notice
of Removal (R. Doc. 1) with this Court, asserting the existence of federal diversity
jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), and admiralty jurisdiction, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Defendant Underwriters asserts two counterclaims for
declaratory judgment and payment of a thing not owed.6
Defendant Underwriters alleged in the Notice of Removal that Plaintiff is an LLC
organized under the laws of Louisiana and that Plaintiff’s two members are domiciled
in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.7 Defendant stated that diversity subject matter
jurisdiction existed in this action because the petition names “Certain Underwriters
at Lloyd’s Subscribing to Policy Number B0621MFALL000216,” which is not an

See R. Doc. 8-2, p. 1.
See R. Doc. 10, pp. 1-2.
5 See R. Doc. 10, p. 1.
6 See R. Doc. 24, pp. 18-20.
7 See R. Doc. 1, pp. 2-3.
3
4

entity capable of being sued.8 Defendant asserted that the Lloyd’s insurance market
consists of syndicates that subscribe to a policy and that each syndicate is made up
of individual members or investors, whose citizenship compose the membership of the
syndicate.9 Defendant provided that the Subject Policy is subscribed to by the
following Syndicates: Swiss Re, Chubb 1882,10 Chaucer 1084,11 Hardy 382,12 Skuld
1897,13 Aegis 1225,14 QBE 1036,15 Brit 2987,16 Liberty 4472,17 Travelers 5000,18
Novae 2007,19 Houston Casualty Company,20 and Pioneer 9981.21 Defendant stated
that each syndicate had a sole member who are citizens for purposes of diversity
jurisdiction of the following places: Luxembourg, London, Massachusetts, Oslo, the
United Kingdom, and New York.
Plaintiff thereafter filed a Motion to Remand (R. Doc. 8), stating that subject
matter jurisdiction did not exist because the parties were not diverse and the “savings
to suitors” clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1333 precludes removal on the basis of admiralty
jurisdiction. Plaintiff contended that its LLC is made up of several members,

See R. Doc. 1, p. 3.
Id.
10 The sole member is a citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction of Luxembourg. See R. Doc. 1, p.
5.
11 The sole member is a citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction of London. Id.
12 The sole member is a citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction of Massachusetts. See R. Doc. 1,
p. 6.
13 The sole member is a citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction of London. Id.
14 The sole member is a citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction of Oslo. Id.
15 The sole member is a citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. Id.
16 The sole member is a citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. Id.
17 The sole member is a citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. Id.
18 The sole member is a citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction of New York. See R. Doc. 1, p. 7.
19 The sole member is a citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. Id.
20 The sole member is a citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction of London. Id.
21 The sole member is a citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. Id.
8
9

including a member that is a citizen of the United Kingdom and a member that is an
Australian corporation.22 Underwriters then moved to amend the Notice of Removal
to correct an error regarding the citizenship of Houston Casualty Company, stating
that Defendant Houston Casualty Company Syndicate is a citizen of Texas for
purposes of diversity jurisdiction.23 Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Memorandum (R.
Doc. 39) in support of its Motion to Remand (R. Doc. 8), stating that one of Plaintiff’s
members, Charlotte Young, is also a citizen of Texas.
On March 29, 2019, the Court entered an Order (R. Doc. 53), denying without
prejudice the motion to remand,24 subject to reconsideration after limited discovery
on diversity of citizenship issues. Notably, the Court specifically rejected Defendant’s
assertion that the “savings to suitors” clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1333 does not prohibit the
removal of maritime claims.
II.

Analysis

Having completed jurisdictional discovery, Plaintiff seeks to remand the action
again, and Defendant requests that the Court certify its previous Order, which denied
the first motion to remand without prejudice, for interlocutory appeal.

See R. Doc. 8-2, pp. 2-3.
See R. Doc. 9-1, p. 1.
24 See R. Docs. 8, 10, 17, 18, 37, and 39.
22
23

A. Admiralty and Diversity Jurisdiction
For the sake of brevity, the Court adopts the law and analysis discussion of
admiralty and diversity jurisdiction in the Court’s March 29, 2019 Order.25
In the March 29, 2019 Order, the Court rejected Underwriters’ admiralty removal
argument, citing numerous rulings by several sections of this Court: “Focusing on the
saving suitors clause in § 1333 and history of maritime removal jurisdiction, those
sections concluded that the 2011 Amendments to § 1441 did not change the
traditional non-removability of general maritime law claims.”26 The Order states,
“We join our colleagues by holding that the 2011 Amendments to § 1441 did not
change the traditional non-removability of general maritime law claims initiated in
state court, and such claims are not removable without an independent basis of
subject matter jurisdiction.”27
The Court then discussed the parties’ dispute regarding complete diversity and
gave Defendant the opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery.28 Therefore, the
Court did not remand this action at that time solely to allow the parties an
opportunity to conduct limited discovery on diversity of citizenship issues.29 The
parties have completed jurisdictional discovery, and Defendant concedes that the

See R. Doc. 53.
R. Doc. 53, p. 6.
27 R. Doc. 53, p. 8.
28 See R. Doc. 53, pp. 8-10.
29 See R. Doc. 53, p. 10.
25
26

“jurisdictional discovery indicates that there is not complete diversity between
Plaintiff and Underwriters.”30
Plaintiff submits that the Court correctly ruled in its March 29, 2019 Order that
it does not have admiralty jurisdiction over this action, and that the Court should
award costs and fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Defendant acknowledges that
“Although various sections of this Court have held that admiralty cases are not
removable, other courts around the circuit and the country more widely have reached
the opposite conclusion.”31 The Court’s previous Order was clear: “Having established
the applicability of the savings to suitors clause, this matter could be remanded
unless an independent basis of jurisdiction exists.”32 Defendant Underwriters has
failed to provide any independent basis of jurisdiction. None seems to exist.
Therefore, in accordance with its previous Order, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s
Renewed Motion to Remand to State Court (R. Doc. 63).
B. Certifying an Interlocutory Order for Immediate Appeal
Defendant submits that an immediate appeal of this Court’s pervious ruling will
materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation.33 Defendant requests,
Because the issue remains hotly contested and unresolved by the Fifth
Circuit, and is now determinative of whether this case is to be litigated
in state or federal court, Underwriters respectfully request that the
Court certify its March 29, 2019 ruling for appellate review pursuant to

R. Doc. 62-1, p. 2.
Id.
32 R. Doc. 53, p. 8.
33 R. Doc. 62-1, p. 7.
30
31

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), and decline to make any further jurisdictional
rulings in this case pending the outcome of that appeal.
R. Doc. 62-1, pp. 2-3. The Court may certify an interlocutory order for immediate
appeal if it finds that (1) the order involves a controlling question of law as to which
there is substantial ground for difference of opinion; and (2) “an immediate appeal
from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” 28
U.S.C. § 1292(b). Interlocutory appeals are “exceptional.” They “do not lie simply to
determine the correctness of a ruling.”34 Plaintiff argues that not only is the Court
compelled to rule on the jurisdictional issue according to Fifth Circuit precedent and
Congressional mandate, but Defendant does not have a dispositive order to appeal.35
The Court finds that Defendant fails to make the require showing under § 1292(b).
Further, the Court notes that the March 29, 2019 Order (R. Doc. 53) in this matter
does not in any way materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.
Indeed, the Court’s Order simply remands this matter for resolution in another
venue. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Certify the Court’s
March 29, 2019 Order for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (R.
Doc. 62).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Motion to Certify the Court’s March 29, 2019
Order for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (R. Doc. 62) is
DENIED.

Clark-Dietz & Associates-Engineers, Inc. v. Basic Const. Co., 702 F.2d 67, 68 (5th Cir. 1983) (Rubin,
J.).
35 See R. Doc. 66.
34

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Renewed Motion to Remand to State
Court (R. Doc. 63) is GRANTED. This action is REMANDED to the Twenty-Fourth
Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this the 12th day of November, 2019.

_____________________________________
WENDY B. VITTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE