McQueen et al v. Aramark et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER denying 7 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 3/30/2016. (eat)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

WHITNEY MCQUEEN and JENNY
WESENBERG, Individually and a Heirs
to the Estate of ALEC MCQUEEN,
Deceased,
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

vs.
ARAMARK CORPORATION, a
Delaware Corporation; ARAMARK
SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT
SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and JOSHUA SMITH,
and Individual,

Case No. 2:15-CV-492-DAK

Defendants.
This matter is before the court on the Defendant Aramark Sports and Entertainment
Services, LLC’s (“Aramark S&E’s”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Re: Jurisdiction. A
hearing on the matter was held on March 23, 2016. At the hearing, Plaintiffs were represented by
Peter Summerill and Colin King. Aramark S&E was represented by Adam Pace and Korey
Rasmussen. Before the hearing, the court carefully considered the memoranda and other
materials submitted by the parties. Since taking the matter under advisement, the court has
further considered the law and facts relating to the matter. Now being fully advised, the court
renders the following Memorandum Decision and Order.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Whitney McQueen and Jenny Wesenberg are Utah residents and the surviving
parents and heirs of Alec McQueen. Aramark Corporation and Aramark S&E are Delaware

1

corporations doing regular business in Utah with their principal places of business in
Pennsylvania.
On June 10, 2014, Alec McQueen jumped into the water at Bullfrog Marina in Lake
Powell, received an electric shock, and eventually drowned. His friend and emergency
responders also received electric shocks when trying to rescue him. A later investigation
determined that the electric shock came from an amperage outlet, maintained by Aramark S&E,
through a boat, owned by Joshua Smith, and was discharged into the water around the boat.
Plaintiffs allege that the outlet was neglected and not maintained.
On July 13, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendants for wrongful death
arising out of negligent actions. The initial complaint had Aramark, Aramark S&E, and Joshua
Smith as Defendants. Joshua Smith was dismissed as a party by a Court Order on September 23,
2015, which was submitted in response to a stipulated motion. Defendant Aramark S&E filed an
answer to the Complaint on October 6, 2015. Also on October 6, 2015, Aramark S&E filed a
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Re: Jurisdiction. Although Aramark S&E agrees that the
Court has jurisdiction over this case, Aramark S&E’s motion requests the Court to enter an order
stating that the Court lacks admiralty jurisdiction but has diversity jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
In its motion, Aramark S&E asks the court to make a judgment on the pleadings that the
court lacks admiralty jurisdiction but has diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims against
Aramark S&E. Aramark S&E’s sole argument for claiming that the court lacks admiralty
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims is that all of the allegedly negligent conduct by Aramark S&E
occurred on land instead of on navigable waters. Although a full admiralty-jurisdiction analysis
considers other factors in addition to the location of the tort, the court will limit its analysis in

2

this case to the location of the tort because that is the only factor argued by Aramark S&E in its
motion and reply.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Defendant Aramark S&E filed the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Re: Jurisdiction
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). A motion for judgment on the pleadings under
Rule 12(c) is reviewed under the same standard as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
under Rule 12(b)(6). Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Farm Credit Bank of Wichita, 226 F.3d 1138, 1160
(10th Cir. 2000). The court accepts “all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true” and
construes “them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Id. (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted). The court grants a 12(c) motion “only when it appears that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claims that would entitle the plaintiff” to a
denial of the 12(c) motion. Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution extends the judicial power of the
United States “to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction.” By statute, the “district
courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of: (1) Any civil case
of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1333 (2012). Providing the federal courts
with exclusive jurisdiction over admiralty cases is founded on “the need for uniform rules
governing navigation.” Foremost Ins. Co. v. Richardson, 457 U.S. 668, 677 (1982). However,
“[d]ue regard for the rightful independence of state governments, which should actuate federal
courts, requires that they scrupulously confine their own jurisdiction to the precise limits which
(a federal statute) has defined.” Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, 409 U.S.
249, 273 (1972) (citation omitted).

3

To determine whether the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts extends to
specific tort claims, courts originally looked solely to the locality of the tort. One of the early
tests applied by the United States Supreme Court has been called the “strict locality test.” See
Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358, 361 (1990). In The Plymouth, 70 U.S. 20 (1866), the Supreme
Court first defined the strict locality test as follows: “the wrong and injury complained of must
have been committed wholly upon the high seas or navigable waters, or, at least, the substance
and consummation of the same must have taken place upon these waters to be within admiralty
jurisdiction.” Id. at 35. The test could be interpreted to strictly require that both the tortious
conduct and the resulting damage or injury occur on navigable waters for the tort to be
considered within admiralty jurisdiction. The Supreme Court’s application of that test in The
Plymouth case supports that strict interpretation. In The Plymouth, the Supreme Court held that a
claim for damages to a wharf caused by a fire that started on a ship and spread to the wharf did
not fall within admiralty jurisdiction because the damage occurred on the wharf, which is
considered to be an extension of land. Id. at 36-37.
In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court identified “some of the problems with the
locality test of maritime tort jurisdiction.” Executive Jet Aviation, 409 U.S. at 255. For example,
“serious difficulties with the locality test are illustrated by cases where the maritime locality of
the tort is clear, but where the invocation of admiralty jurisdiction seems almost absurd.” Id.
These “serious difficulties” made the locality test over inclusive. Another problem was that the
“ostensibly simple locality test was complicated by the rule that the injury had to be ‘wholly’
sustained on navigable waters for the tort to be within admiralty.” Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v.
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 532 (1995). This problem made the locality test
under inclusive.

4

To help solve the problem with the locality test being over inclusive, the Supreme Court
developed a second test for admiralty tort jurisdiction to go along with the locality test. “[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.” Id. at
534.
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. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The addition of the connection test to the
admiralty-jurisdiction analysis avoids “absurd” results such as invoking admiralty jurisdiction
over an aircraft accident just because the aircraft fortuitously comes to rest in navigable waters.
See Executive Jet Aviation, 409 U.S. at 255-57.
To help solve the problems with the locality test being under inclusive, Congress reversed
the result reached by the Supreme Court in The Plymouth by passing the Admiralty Extension
Act (“AEA”) in 1948. Under the AEA, “[t]he admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United
States extends to and includes cases of injury or damage, to person or property, caused by a
vessel on navigable waters, even though the injury or damage is done or consummated on land.”
46 U.S.C. § 30101 (2012). According to the AEA, as long as the tortious conduct occurred on a
vessel in navigable waters, the resulting injury or damage could occur on land and still be within
admiralty jurisdiction. After passage of the AEA, the proper inquiry under the locality test
portion of the admiralty-jurisdiction analysis is “whether the tort occurred on navigable water or
whether injury suffered on land was caused by a vessel on navigable water.” Grubart, 513 U.S.
at 534.

5

Although the connection test and the AEA address some of the over- and under-inclusive
problems with the original strict locality test, the locality test continues to be part of the analysis
for admiralty jurisdiction in tort cases, and “borderline situations” still complicate the analysis.
See Executive Jet Aviation, 409 U.S. at 255. For example, although the AEA clarifies the
jurisdiction of torts when the tortious conduct occurs on a vessel in navigable waters but the
damage or injury occurs on land, the AEA does not shed any light on situations, like this case, in
which the tortious conduct occurs on land but the damage or injury occurs on navigable waters.
Applying the strict locality test from The Plymouth in the “converse factual setting,” see id., one
could argue that, because both the tortious conduct and the resulting damage or injury did not
occur on navigable waters, the locality test is not met, and the tort is not subject to admiralty
jurisdiction. However, even the strict rule from The Plymouth suggests that a tort could be within
admiralty jurisdiction if, “at least, the substance and consummation” of the tort took place on
navigable waters. 70 U.S. 20, 35 (1866). One potential interpretation of that phrase is that, if at
least the damage or injury resulting from the tortious conduct occurred on navigable waters, a
court could find that the tort meets the locality test for purposes of admiralty jurisdiction.
Supreme Court precedent subsequent to the decision in The Plymouth seems to have
adopted this interpretation of the “substance and consummation” portion of the strict locality test
that would find admiralty jurisdiction over torts even if only the damage or injury occurred in
navigable waters. For example, in Grubart, the Supreme Court summarizes the strict locality rule
from The Plymouth as follows: “the injury had to be ‘wholly’ sustained on navigable waters for
the tort to be within admiralty” and later referenced “the location of the harm” when referring to
the “application of the locality rule.” Grubart, 513 U.S. at 532-33 (emphasis added). In another
case, the Supreme Court provides examples of situations that would invoke “not only the

6

jurisdiction of the federal courts, but the full panoply of the substantive admiralty law as well”
under the traditional locality test. Executive Jet Aviation, 409 U.S. at 255-256. One of the
examples was “if a piece of machinery sustains water damage from being dropped into a harbor
by a land-based crane,” which involves land-based tortious conduct with the resulting damage
occurring in navigable waters. Other courts have adopted this same interpretation. See, e.g.,
Taghadomi v. United States, 401 F.3d 1080, 1084 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing as “the clear law
of our circuit that the situs of a tort for the purpose of determining admiralty jurisdiction is the
place where the injury occurs”); Avondale Shipyards, Inc. v. Vessel Thomas E. Cuffe, 434 F.
Supp. 920, 927 (E.D. La. 1977) (concluding that “for jurisdictional purposes, a tort occurs where
the impact of the act or omission produces injury. Thus, where a force giving rise to an injury on
the waters originates on land, the tort is maritime”).
Aramark S&E argues that the Court cannot exercise admiralty jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’
claims because Plaintiffs’ allegations of negligent maintenance of the electrical power outlet
pedestals and warning labels on the pedestals all involve land-based conduct, so the allegations
do not meet the locality test portion of the admiralty jurisdiction analysis.
The court disagrees with Aramark S&E’s arguments. As discussed above, the locality test
portion of the admiralty-jurisdiction analysis has been extended and interpreted to cover a wider
range of torts than may have initially been envisioned under some interpretations of the strict
locality test. In its current form, the locality test can be met if either the tortious conduct begins
on land but culminates with an injury on navigable waters or the tortious conduct begins on a
vessel on navigable waters but culminates with an injury on the land. Although this interpretation
of the locality test can potentially encompass many torts that have no place within admiralty

7

jurisdiction, the connection test portion of the analysis will remove most of the otherwise absurd
results from remaining within admiralty jurisdiction.
Accepting the well-pleaded allegations in the Complaint as true, Aramark S&E’s conduct
in this case caused Alec McQueen to be shocked and drown in navigable waters. Because the
alleged injury in this case occurred on navigable waters, the court concludes that the locality test
of the admiralty-jurisdiction analysis has been met. Because Aramark S&E’s motion was based
solely on the locality test portion of the analysis, the court concludes that Aramark S&E’s motion
should be denied.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Aramark S&E’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings Re: Jurisdiction is DENIED.

DATED this 30th day of March, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

_________________________________________
DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge

8