admiralty or general maritime claim in Louisiana

2004Before its amendment in 1999, Article 1732(6) stated that a trial by jury was not available in a suit on an admiralty or general maritime claim under federal law brought in state court under a federal "saving to suitors" clause, if the plaintiff designated that suit as an admiralty or general maritime claim. [5] In Parker v. Rowan Companies, Inc., 599 So.2d 296, 299 (La.1992)(on rehearing), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 871 , 113 S.Ct. 203 , 121 L.Ed.2d 145 (1992), the Louisiana Supreme Court examined the history of this provision and concluded its purpose was to "track the federal system and *33 giv

2004Before its amendment in 1999, Article 1732(6) stated that a trial by jury was not available in a suit on an admiralty or general maritime claim under federal law brought in state court under a federal “saving to suitors” clause, if the plaintiff | ^designated that suit as an admiralty or general maritime claim. 5 In Parker v. Rowan Companies, Inc., 599 So.2d 296, 299 (La.1992)(on rehearing), cer t. denied, 506 U.S. 871 , 113 S.Ct. 203 , 121 L.Ed.2d 145 (1992), the Louisiana Supreme Court examined the history of this provision and concluded its purpose was to “track the federal system and give

2004Before its amendment in 1999, Article 1732(6) stated that a trial by jury was not available in a suit on an admiralty or general maritime claim under federal law brought in state court under a federal "saving to suitors" clause, if the plaintiff designated that suit as an admiralty or general maritime claim. [5] In Parker v. Rowan Companies, Inc., 599 So.2d 296, 299 (La.1992)(on rehearing), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 871 , 113 S.Ct. 203 , 121 L.Ed.2d 145 (1992), the Louisiana Supreme Court examined the history of this provision and concluded its purpose was to "track the federal system and *33 giv

2004Before its amendment in 1999, Article 1732(6) stated that a trial by jury was not available in a suit on an admiralty or general maritime claim under federal law brought in state court under a federal “saving to suitors” clause, if the plaintiff | ^designated that suit as an admiralty or general maritime claim. 5 In Parker v. Rowan Companies, Inc., 599 So.2d 296, 299 (La.1992)(on rehearing), cer t. denied, 506 U.S. 871 , 113 S.Ct. 203 , 121 L.Ed.2d 145 (1992), the Louisiana Supreme Court examined the history of this provision and concluded its purpose was to “track the federal system and give

1992The First Circuit Court of Appeal has twice determined, both in Sons v. Inland Marine Service, Inc., 577 So.2d 225 (1st Cir.1991) and in Heinhuis v. Venture Assoc., 558 So.2d 1244 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 559 So.2d 1369 , 559 So.2d 1385 (La.1990), that the Jones Act claim is an admiralty or general maritime claim under federal law.

1991ISSUES Defendants raise the following issues in their application: (1) Whether or not Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1732(6) violates article III and the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution by attempting to vest Louisiana state courts with admiralty jurisdiction. (2) Whether defendants were entitled to demand a jury trial after plaintiffs withdrew their original request for trial by jury. (3) Whether or not article 1732(6) violates constitutional provisions entitling defendants to equal protection, due process and equal access to the courts. (4) Whether or not plainti

1992The First Circuit Court of Appeal has twice determined, both in Sons v. Inland Marine Service, Inc., 577 So.2d 225 (1st Cir.1991) and in Heinhuis v. Venture Assoc., 558 So.2d 1244 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 559 So.2d 1369 , 559 So.2d 1385 (La.1990), that the Jones Act claim is an admiralty or general maritime claim under federal law.

1992Sons, supra and Heinhuis, supra. Finally, the court noted that the denial of a jury trial does not operate to deny defendants access to the courts as "they still will have an adequate opportunity to defend themselves before an impartial trier of fact." At page 230.

1993LSA-C.C.P. art. 1732(6) states: A trial by jury shall not be available in: * * * * * * (6) A suit on an admiralty or general maritime claim under federal law that is brought in state court under a federal "saving to suitors" clause, if the plaintiff has designated that suit as an admiralty or general maritime claim. * * * * * * The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently addressed this very issue in Linton v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 964 F.2d 1480 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 467 , 121 L.Ed.2d 375 (1992).

1993LSA-C.C.P. art. 1732(6) states: A trial by jury shall not be available in: * * * * * * (6) A suit on an admiralty or general maritime claim under federal law that is brought in state court under a federal "saving to suitors" clause, if the plaintiff has designated that suit as an admiralty or general maritime claim. * * * * * * The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently addressed this very issue in Linton v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 964 F.2d 1480 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 467 , 121 L.Ed.2d 375 (1992).

1992Marine Service v. Weaver Shipyards, Inc., 702 F.2d 585 (5th Cir.1983) and Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, 698 F.2d 967 (9th Cir.1983), parties seeking to invoke the benefits of Code of Civil Procedure article 1732(6) should not simply designate their suit as an admiralty or general maritime claim, but should make a designation substantially similar to the following: "This is an admiralty or general maritime law claim brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333 , the saving to suitor's clause, and La.C.C.P. art. 1732(6)." NOTES [1] Originally, separa

1992Marine Service v. Weaver Shipyards, Inc., 702 F.2d 585 (5th Cir.1983) and Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, 698 F.2d 967 (9th Cir.1983), parties seeking to invoke the benefits of Code of Civil Procedure article 1732(6) should not simply designate their suit as an admiralty or general maritime claim, but should make a designation substantially similar to the following: "This is an admiralty or general maritime law claim brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333 , the saving to suitor's clause, and La.C.C.P. art. 1732(6)." NOTES [1] Originally, separa

1992The First Circuit Court of Appeal has twice determined, both in Sons v. Inland Marine Service, Inc., 577 So.2d 225 (1st Cir.1991) and in Heinhuis v. Venture Assoc., 558 So.2d 1244 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 559 So.2d 1369 , 559 So.2d 1385 (La.1990), that the Jones Act claim is an admiralty or general maritime claim under federal law.

1992The First Circuit Court of Appeal has twice determined, both in Sons v. Inland Marine Service, Inc., 577 So.2d 225 (1st Cir.1991) and in Heinhuis v. Venture Assoc., 558 So.2d 1244 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 559 So.2d 1369 , 559 So.2d 1385 (La.1990), that the Jones Act claim is an admiralty or general maritime claim under federal law.

1992The court then noted that the state had legitimate interests in enacting LSA-C.C.P. art. 1732(6), first to make the procedure in state admiralty cases consistent with the procedure in the federal court system, where a plaintiff may also designate his claim as an admiralty or general maritime claim to preclude defendant from having a jury trial, (see F.R.C.P. 9(h) and Romero v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, 515 F.2d 1249 (5th Cir.1975), and second to minimize the delays and greater court costs which generally attend jury trials.

1992This article provides that “a trial by jury shall not be available in ... a suit on an admiralty or general maritime claim under federal law brought in state court under a federal ‘saving to suitors’ clause, if the plaintiff has designated that suit as an admiralty or general maritime claim.” In denying the plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, the trial court relied upon Pace v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 579 So.2d 494 (La.

1992At the time of oral argument in November, 1991, Heinhuis was the only positive ruling on this issue, although there was a case from the Fourth Circuit, Gauchet v. Chevron USA Inc., 541 So.2d 272 (La.App. 4 Cir.1989), which expressed a contrary sentiment in dicta—and at that time, we chose to follow the Heinhuis ruling as the more correct interpretation.

1991Strauss v. Rivers, 501 So.2d 876 (La.App. 5th Cir.1987); Smith v. Hanover Ins, Co., 363 So.2d 719 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1978); Forrester, Jr., Civil Procedure, La.

1991Strauss v. Rivers, 501 So.2d 876 (La.App. 5th Cir.1987); Smith v. Hanover Ins, Co., 363 So.2d 719 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1978); Forrester, Jr., Civil Procedure, La.