Clouding the waters of maritime litigation.

• Author: Anderson, Thomas R.
• Position: Case Note

INTRODUCTION

The United States Constitution provides that the federal judicial power "shall extend . . . to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction."(1) Despite this grant, the federal courts have never had exclusive jurisdiction of maritime cases.(2) State and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction of some maritime claims.(3) In particular, state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction of maritime actions brought under the "saving to suitors" clause(4) or the Jones Act.(5)

The ability of state courts to exercise jurisdiction of maritime cases is significant to maritime litigation. State courts exercising personal jurisdiction of maritime claims may supplement federal maritime law with their own rules and remedies as long as the additions do not substantively alter that law.(6) A state remedy or rule impermissibly alters the substantive maritime law when it "works material prejudice to the characteristic features of the general maritime law or interferes with the proper harmony and uniformity of that law in its international or interstate relations."(7)

A controversy recently existed as to whether state courts exercising jurisdiction over maritime claims could deny defendants the defense of forum non conveniens, which allows a court to dismiss or transfer a case to a more appropriate forum, if one exists.(8) State rules prohibiting forum non conveniens dismissals in state court maritime actions sparked this controversy, in part, because such dismissals would be allowed if the same cases had been filed in federal court.(9) The issue was whether such rules were preempted by the federal rule.(10)

Until American Dredging Co. v. Miller,(11) courts were divided on this issue.(12) In American Dredging, the Supreme Court resolved this dispute by holding that federal law does not preempt state forum non conveniens rules in maritime cases filed in state courts.(13) Applying the Jensen test,(14) the Court reasoned that forum non conveniens is neither characteristic of admiralty law(15) nor essential for maintaining the uniformity of the general maritime law.(16) As a result, the Court concluded that state rules, which prohibit forum non conveniens dismissals in maritime cases, are permissible and do not alter the substantive maritime law.(17)

This Note examines American Dredging and scrutinizes the Court's rationale for holding that state laws which prohibit forum non conveniens are permissible. Part I of this Note summarizes the facts, procedural posture, and the Supreme Court's holding in American Dredging.(18) Part II analyzes the Court's holding(19) and, in particular, discusses how forum non conveniens is a characteristic feature of the general maritime law,(20) and how state rules that prohibit forum non conveniens hinder the uniformity of maritime law.(21) Part II further explores the impact that American Dredging will have on maritime litigation.(22) This Note concludes that the Court reached an erroneous conclusion in American Dredging which will negatively impact maritime litigation.

1. AMERICAN DREDGING: THE COURT TRIES TO CLEAR THE WATER

   1. Factual and Procedural Background

      In 1987, William Miller, a Mississippi resident, traveled to Pennsylvania to find a job.(23) American Dredging Company (American Dredging), a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey, hired Miller to work aboard a tug on the Delaware River.(24) Shortly after being hired, Miller was injured while working aboard the tug.(25)

      In 1989, after having returned to Mississippi, Miller sued American Dredging in Louisiana state court pursuant to the "saving to suitors" clause, the Jones Act, and general maritime law.(26) Based on the tenuous connection between Louisiana, the parties, and the facts of the case, American Dredging made a motion to dismiss the action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.(27) Reasoning that state courts must apply the forum non conveniens rule of the general maritime law, the trial court granted American Dredging's motion.(28) The Louisiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.(29)

      Subsequently, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and held that the Louisiana forum non conveniens rule applied.(30) The court initially based its decision on the reverse-Erie doctrine, which suggests that a state court may apply its own procedural rules when it entertains maritime actions.(31) After characterizing forum non conveniens as nothing more than a procedural remedy, the court concluded, under reverse-Erie analysis, that the Louisiana forum non conveniens rule governed maritime actions brought in Louisiana courts.(32) The court further based its holding on Missouri ex ref. Southern Railway Company v. Mayfield.(33) Mayfield, which addressed whether a Missouri court was bound by the forum non conveniens rule contained in the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA),(34) held that state courts hearing FELA claims could apply their own forum non conveniens rules.(35) Since the Jones Act was based on the FELA,(36) the court reasoned that state courts can apply their own forum non conveniens rules in actions brought under the Jones Act.(37)

   2. The Supreme Court's Holding: A Rigid Application of Jensen

      In American Dredging, the Supreme Court affirmed the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision and held that the federal forum non conveniens rule does not preempt state forum non conveniens rules in maritime cases filed in state courts.(38) However, as discussed below, the Court reached this conclusion by rigidly misapplying the Jensen test.(39)

      The Court first concluded that the doctrine of forum non conveniens is not a characteristic feature of admiralty law.(40) Under the first prong of the Jensen test, a state court may supplement the general maritime law with its own rules and remedies unless those additions materially prejudice a "characteristic feature" of admiralty law.(41) While conceding that the doctrine of forum non conveniens in the United States was likely "given its earliest and most frequent expression in admiralty cases,"(42) the Court concluded that the doctrine was not a characteristic feature of admiralty law.(43) The Court indicated that forum non conveniens is not a characteristic feature because it "neither originated in admiralty nor has exclusive application there.... [but has] long been a doctrine of general application."(44) Therefore, after deciding that forum non conveniens is not a characteristic feature of admiralty law, the Court logically concluded that Louisiana's forum non conveniens rule (45) does not materially prejudice an essential feature of admiralty law.(46)

      The Court next concluded that state rules which prohibit forum non conveniens in maritime actions do not disrupt the uniform application of maritime law.(47) Under the second prong of the Jensen test, a state rule is impermissible if it upsets the uniform application of the substantive maritime law.(48) Approaching this issue, the Court acknowledged that the framers of the Constitution intended to create a system of maritime law which was uniformly applied in the courts of this country.(49) However, despite this intent, the Court correctly recognized that the uniformity requirement is not rigidly absolute and that states are given some leeway in supplementing maritime law.(50) Significantly, without deciding where the line between interfering and not interfering with uniformity lies under Jensen,(51) the Court reasoned that "uniformity,' mandates the uniform application of substantive maritime law and not procedural law.(52) That is, the Court concluded that procedural rules do not disrupt the uniformity of maritime law.(53) Thus, after characterizing forum non conveniens as "nothing more or less than a supervening venue provision ... [which] goes to process rather than substantive rights,"(54) the Court concluded that state forum non conveniens rules do not affect the uniformity of maritime law.(55)

      In addition to concluding that forum non conveniens is a mere procedural rule which does not disrupt the uniformity of maritime law, the Court noted that forum non conveniens, by its very nature, makes "uniformity and predictability of outcome almost impossible."(56) The Court reasoned that since forum non conveniens dismissals are left to the discretion of the trial judge,(57) no uniform outcome can be expected when a trial court considers a forum non conveniens motion.(58) Moreover, like the Louisiana Supreme Court, the court was persuaded by Mayfield,(59) which held that state courts entertaining FELA(60) claims could apply their own forum non conveniens rules.(61) Since the Jones Act(62) was based on FELA, the Court reasoned that state courts are free to apply their own forum non conveniens rules when they entertain Jones Act claims.(63)

2. American Dredging Analyzed

   1. What does "Characteristic" Mean?

      The Supreme Court concluded that forum non conveniens was not a characteristic feature of admiralty law because it did not originate or have exclusive application in admiralty.(64) Characteristic does not, as the Court suggested, denote originality or exclusivity. Instead, it means a typical, distinctive or distinguishing feature "pertaining to, constituting, or indicating the character or peculiar quality of a ... thing."(65) Therefore, the Court misinterpreted "characteristic" and, in doing so, disregarded the essential and historic relationship between forum non conveniens and maritime law.

      Based on the historic and unique relationship between maritime law and forum non conveniens, forum non conveniens is clearly a characteristic feature of maritime law.(66) Most legal historians trace the origins of forum non conveniens to nineteenth century Scottish common law(67) and specifically to Scottish estate cases.(68) Even though forum non conveniens might have originated in Scottish estate cases, "[f]or reasons peculiar to the special...