# Marquette Transportation Company Gulf-Inland, LLC v. Navigation Maritime Bulgarea

> District Court, E.D. Louisiana · October 1, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10185978

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** October 1, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10185978

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing “the historical exclusion of jury trials for admiralty suits”

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MARQUETTE TRANSPORTATION CIVIL ACTION
COMPANY GULF-INLAND, LLC

VERSUS NO. 19-10927

NAVIGATION MARITIME
BULGAREA ET AL. SECTION: “G”(2)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is Defendant Balkan Navigation Ltd. and Defendant Navigation
Maritime Bulgare JSC’s (collectively, “Balkan”) “Motion to Strike Jury Demand.”1 Plaintiff
Marquette Transportation Company Gulf-Inland, LLC (“Marquette”) opposes the motion.2 This
litigation arises from an alleged collision between Marquette’s vessel, the KIEFFER BAILEY,
and Balkan’s vessel, the M/V STRANDJA, in the Mississippi River near Chalmette, Louisiana.3
Considering the motion, the memoranda in support and in opposition, the record, and the
applicable law, the Court denies Balkan’s motion to strike jury demand.
I. Background
A. Factual Background
On January 3, 2019, the KIEFFER BAILEY allegedly collided with the M/V STRANDJA
while proceeding down the Mississippi River near Chalmette, Louisiana.4 At the time of the

1 Rec. Doc. 56.
2 Rec. Doc. 60.
3 Rec. Doc. 1 at 2–3.
4 Id.
alleged incident, Marquette was the owner and/or operator of the KIEFFER BAILEY, Defendant
Navigation Maritime Bulgare JSC was the ship manager and/or operator of the M/V STRANDJA,
and Defendant Balkan Navigation Ltd. was the registered owner of the M/V STRANDJA.5

Marquette alleges that the KIEFFER BAILEY was proceeding down the middle of the
Mississippi River when the M/V STRANDJA steered directly into its navigational path.6
Marquette claims that Balkan’s vessel struck and damaged Marquette’s vessel.7 Marquette also
claims that its crewmembers sustained physical and emotional injuries.8
B. Procedural Background
On June 6, 2019, Marquette filed a complaint in this Court.9 Marquette avers that as a
result of “Defendants’ negligence and unseaworthiness of the M/V STRANDJA, Marquette has
incurred liabilities and damages.”10 Marquette seeks damages for “barge damage, loss of use,
survey and salvage fees, and other expenses, interests, and costs” as well as “contribution and/or
indemnity from Defendants” for the alleged physical and emotional injuries to crewmembers

aboard the KIEFFER BAILEY.11
Marquette asserts that this Court has original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the
federal diversity jurisdiction statute 28 U.S.C. § 1332.12 Specifically, Marquette states: “This

5 Id. at 1–2.
6 Id. at 2–3.
7 Id. at 3.
8 Id.
9 Rec. Doc. 1.
10 Id. at 3.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 1.
claim involves a controversy in excess of $75,000 and a citizen of a state and citizens of a foreign
state. Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332.”13 Marquette also requests a trial by jury.14
On June 21, 2019, Balkan answered the complaint, filed a counterclaim against Marquette,

and brought a third-party demand in rem against Marquette’s vessel, the KIEFFER BAILEY, to
recover damages incurred by the M/V STRANDJA.15 On September 11, 2019, Marquette
answered Balkan’s counterclaim and, with leave of Court, filed third-party complaints against
Crescent Towing & Salvage Co., Inc. (“Crescent”) and Robert Johnson (“Johnson”).16 In the
third-party complaint against Crescent and Johnson, Marquette brings “admiralty and maritime
claim[s] within the meaning of Rule 9(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”17 Marquette
also tenders Crescent and Johnson as direct defendants to Balkan in accordance with Rule 14(c)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.18
On October 23, 2019, with leave of Court, Marquette amended the complaint to name
Balkan’s vessel, the M/V STRANDJA, as an in rem defendant in this litigation.19 Marquette

averred that the M/V STRANDJA was liable to Marquette as a result of its “negligence, gross
negligence, and unseaworthiness” which allegedly caused the collision.20 Marquette brought suit
against the M/V STRANDJA as “an admiralty and maritime claim within the meaning of 28

13 Id.
14 Id. at 3.
15 Rec. Doc. 6.
16 Rec. Doc. 17.
17 Id. at 5, 12.
18 Id. at 6, 12.
19 Rec. Doc. 29 at 1.
20 Id. at 5.
U.S.C. § 1333 and Rule 9(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”21 In the amended
complaint, Marquette “reallege[d] and re-aver[red] all allegations of its original complaint and
third-party complaint as fully and completely as if copied herein in extenso.”22 On June 10, 2020,

Marquette voluntarily dismissed the amended complaint.23
On June 24, 2020, Balkan filed the instant “Motion to Strike Jury Demand,” arguing that
that Marquette’s request for a jury trial is precluded because: (1) Marquette cannot establish the
amount in controversy required for this Court to exercise diversity jurisdiction, and (2)
Marquette’s actions demonstrate that it elected to proceed in admiralty and therefore has no right
to trial by jury.24 On July 7, 2020, Marquette filed an opposition to the motion to strike jury
demand.25 On July 17, 2020, with leave of Court, Balkan filed a reply memorandum in further
support of the motion to strike jury demand.26
II. Parties’ Arguments
A. Balkan’s Motion to Strike Jury Demand

Balkan makes two arguments to demonstrate that Marquette’s jury demand should be
stricken.27 First, Balkan contends that Marquette is unable to establish the requisite amount in
controversy for this Court to exercise diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.28 Balkan

21 Id. at 2.
22 Id. at 1 (internal citations omitted).
23 Rec. Doc. 53.
24 Rec. Doc. 56.
25 Rec. Doc. 60.
26 Rec. Doc. 64.
27 Rec. Doc. 56-1.
28 Id. at 1–2.
relies on Marquette’s amended complaint and documents received from Marquette during
discovery to contend that the amount in controversy at the time of filing was at most $51,682.37,
a figure “well below” the statutory requirement of $75,000.29 Consequently, Balkan argues that

Marquette’s claim is not cognizable under this Court’s federal diversity jurisdiction.30 Balkan
concludes that because Marquette’s claim is cognizable only in admiralty jurisdiction, Marquette
is not entitled to a jury trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(e).31
Second, Balkan argues that Marquette’s actions demonstrate that it elected to proceed in
admiralty thereby precluding its right to a jury trial.32 Specifically, Balkan asserts that Marquette
“designated its third-party demands against Crescent and Johnson as admiralty and maritime
claims within the Court’s admiralty jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1333, expressly made the Rule 9(h)
election to proceed in admiralty, and tendered Crescent and Johnson as direct defendants to
Balkan in accordance with Rule 14(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”33 Balkan further
asserts that when answering Balkan’s counterclaim, Marquette admitted the admiralty and

maritime jurisdiction of this Court.34 Additionally, Balkan claims that Marquette’s amended
complaint, which was later dismissed, brought an in rem action against the M/V SRANDJA and
therefore “further demonstrates Marquette’s invocation of maritime-only remedies in this case.”35
In sum, Balkan argues that because Marquette’s original claim is designated as an

29 Id. at 7–8.
30 Id. at 6.
31 Id. at 9.
32 Id.
33 Id. at 10.
34 Id. at 11.
35 Id.
admiralty claim, and because there is no jury trial right where a claim is designated as an admiralty
claim, Marquette’s jury demand should be stricken and this case should proceed to a bench trial.36
B. Marquette’s Arguments in Opposition

Marquette raises three arguments in opposition to Balkan’s motion to strike jury
demand.37 First, Marquette argues that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the
federal diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because Marquette, in good faith, alleges that the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.38 In support, Marquette points to the complaint wherein
it alleges damages encompassing “barge damage, loss profits, survey costs, and claims incurred
due to obligations related to payment of maintenance and cure to its crew as well as associated
expenses due to Balkan’s negligence.”39 Marquette also submits an affidavit of its counsel, Evans
Martin McLeod, swearing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and providing detailed
estimates of the potential damages.40 Marquette urges that it only admitted admiralty jurisdiction
in its answer to Balkan’s counterclaim because Balkan chose to proceed in admiralty by making

a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(h) designation in its counterclaim.41
Second, Marquette insists that it chose to proceed pursuant to this Court’s diversity
jurisdiction—as opposed to in admiralty—with respect to its original claim against Balkan by
pleading diversity jurisdiction as the sole basis for the exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction.42

36 Rec. Doc. 56-1 at 2.
37 Rec. Doc. 60.
38 Id. at 12.
39 Id.
40 Id. at 14; Rec. Doc. 60-1.
41 Rec. Doc. 60 at 14.
42 Id. at 14, 16.
Marquette contends that its election to proceed pursuant to this Court’s admiralty jurisdiction
with respect to subsequent third-party complaint against Crescent and Johnson does not dislodge
its right to a jury trial on its original claim against Balkan.43

Third, Marquette argues that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), the
dismissal of its amended complaint, which was filed against the M/V STRANDJA in rem, placed
Marquette “in the same legal position” it was in prior to filing the amended complaint and did not
alter its intent to proceed on the law side of the federal court.44
Additionally, Marquette seeks to have Balkan’s counterclaim tried by a jury.45 Marquette
urges the Court to exercise its judicial discretion to order that Marquette’s claims and Balkan’s
counterclaims both be tried by a single jury to “avoid the inefficiencies of a bifurcated trial.”46
C. Balkan’s Arguments in Further Support of the Motion to Strike Jury Demand
Balkan replies to Marquette’s opposition with two arguments in further support of the
motion to strike jury demand. First, Balkan reasserts that Marquette is unable to meet its burden

of establishing the amount in controversy for this Court to exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332.47 Balkan claims that Marquette’s failure to include certain damages in its discovery
responses undermines Marquette’s contention that the amount in controversy satisfies the
jurisdictional requirement.48 Balkan maintains that Marquette’s alleged damages total only

43 Id. at 14–15.
44 Id. at 18.
45 Id. at 18–19.
46 Id. at 19.
47 Rec. Doc. 64 at 1.
48 Id. at 3.
$51,682.37.49
Second, Balkan restates that Marquette’s actions demonstrate that it elected to proceed in
admiralty despite initially designating its claim pursuant to this Court’s federal diversity

jurisdiction.50 Balkan emphasizes that Marquette invoked admiralty jurisdiction in the claims it
brings against Johnson and Crescent.51 For these reasons, Balkan contends that the instant lawsuit
should be treated as an admiralty action and the Court should strike Marquette’s jury demand.52
III. Legal Standard
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 39(a), once a jury demand has been
made, a court may try the matter without a jury only with the consent of the parties or if it
determines that no right to a jury trial actually exists.53 In the instant case, Balkan argues that no
right to a jury trial exists because Marquette has not established that amount in controversy is met
for this Court to exercise diversity jurisdiction, and Marquette’s actions throughout this case show
that it elected to proceed in admiralty.

The Constitution provides that the judicial power of the federal courts “shall extend . . .
to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.”54 Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) provides
that the district courts shall have original jurisdiction over “[a]ny civil case of admiralty or
maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise

49 Id. at 2.
50 Id. at 6.
51 Id. at 8.
52 Id.
53 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(a); LeBlanc v. Panther Helicopters, Inc., 2015 A.M.C. 413, 423 (E.D. La. 2015)
(Barbier, J.).
54 U.S. Const. art III, § 2, cl. 1.
entitled.”55 “This statutory grant gives federal courts jurisdiction over all admiralty and maritime
cases, regardless of the citizenship of the parties or the amount in controversy.”56 It also “reserves
to suitors ‘all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.’”57 “[O]ne significance of the

savings-to-suitors clause, [is that it] permits a litigant to obtain federal jurisdiction over, and jury
resolution of, an admiralty question by invoking federal jurisdiction on an independent basis.”58
Therefore, “[a] maritime issue may be raised in a diversity suit.”59
“When a plaintiff's claim is cognizable under admiralty jurisdiction and some other basis
of federal jurisdiction, [Rule 9(h) of] the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow[s] the plaintiff
to expressly designate her claim as being in admiralty.”60 The United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit has held that “the mere assertion of admiralty jurisdiction as a dual or an alternate
basis of subject matter jurisdiction for a claim is sufficient to make a Rule 9(h) election to proceed
in admiralty for that claim.”61
“Numerous and important consequences” flow from a plaintiff's decision to proceed

“under admiralty or diversity jurisdiction.”62 “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure give special
treatment to admiralty claims,” including designating the Seventh Amendment right to trial by

55 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1).
56 Luera v. M/V Alberta, 635 F.3d 181, 188 (5th Cir. 2011).
57 Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438, 454 (2001) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1)).
58 Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Canadian Universal Ins. Co., 605 F.2d 1340, 1344 (5th Cir. 1979).
59 Id.
60 Luera, 635 F.3d at 188; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(h) (“If a claim for relief is within the admiralty or
maritime jurisdiction and also within the court's subject-matter jurisdiction on some other ground, the
pleading may designate the claim as an admiralty or maritime claim . . . .”)
61 Luera, 635 F.3d at 188–89 (internal citation omitted).
62 T.N.T. Marine Serv., Inc. v. Weaver Shipyards & Dry Docks, Inc., 702 F.2d 585, 586 (5th Cir. 1983)
(citing 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1313 at 453 (1969)).
jury as attaching to “diversity suits but not to admiralty suits.”63
IV. Analysis
In the instant motion, Balkan argues that Marquette’s request for a jury trial is precluded

for two reasons: (1) Marquette cannot establish the amount in controversy required for this Court
to exercise diversity jurisdiction, and (2) Marquette’s actions demonstrate that it elected to
proceed in admiralty and therefore has no right to trial by jury.64 The Court addresses each of
these issues in turn.
A. Whether this Court may Exercise Jurisdiction Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332
The first question before this Court is whether it can exercise federal diversity jurisdiction
over Marquette’s claims against Balkan. Balkan argues that Marquette is unable to establish the
requisite amount in controversy for this Court to exercise original jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332.65 In response, Marquette contends that the complaint, in good faith, alleges that
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.66

A federal court has independent subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 over
an action “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and the action
“is between citizens of different states”67 or “citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a
foreign state.”68 When determining whether the exercise of federal diversity jurisdiction is

63 Id. at 587 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(a), (e)); see also Becker v. Tidewater, Inc., 405 F.3d 257, 259 (5th
Cir. 2005) (discussing “the historical exclusion of jury trials for admiralty suits”).
64 Rec. Doc. 56.
65 Rec Doc. 56-1 at 1–2.
66 Rec. Doc. 60 at 12.
67 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
68 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2).
warranted, “unless the law gives a different rule, the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the
claim is apparently made in good faith” and to justify dismissal “it must appear to a legal certainty
that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount.”69

Here, it is readily apparent from the complaint that Marquette alleges in good faith that
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.70 Paragraph one of the complaint reads: “This claim
involves a controversy in excess of $75,000. . . .”71 Paragraphs eight and nine of the complaint
further illuminate the amount in controversy, asserting that damages encompass “barge damage,
loss of use, survey and salvage fees, and other expenses, interests, and costs” as well as
“contribution and/or indemnity for any and all maintenance and cure obligations or legal
liabilities” resulting from alleged “physical and emotion injures” to “crewmembers aboard the
KIEFFER BAILEY. . . .”72
In its answer to the complaint filed by Marquette, Balkan stated that it “does not contest
the Court’s jurisdiction.”73 Rather, Balkan now relies on Marquette’s amended complaint and

documents received from Marquette during discovery to contend that the amount in controversy
at the time of filing was at most $51,682.37, a figure “well below” the statutory requirement of
$75,000.74

69 St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288 (1938) (internal citations omitted).
70 It is uncontested that the action is between a citizen of a state and citizens of a foreign state. Marquette
incorrectly pleads the citizenship for a limited liability company, but it is clear from the complaint that
Marquette is a United States citizen. Rec. Doc. 1 at 1; Rec. Doc. 29 at 2. Defendants Navigation Maritime
Bulgarea and Balkan Navigation LTD are both Bulgarian companies. Rec. Doc. 1 at 2; Rec. Doc. 6 at 2.
71 Rec. Doc. 1 at 1 (emphasis added).
72 Id. at 3.
73 Rec. Doc. 6 at 2.
74 Rec. Doc. 56-1 at 7–8.
For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that none of the records offered by Balkan
establish to a legal certainty that Marquette’s total damages are limited to $51,682.37. First,
Marquette’s amended complaint incorporated all allegations of the original complaint and added

the M/V STRANDJA as a defendant in rem.75 The $51,682.37 figure relied upon by Balkan refers
only to Marquette’s maritime lien on the M/V STRANDJA; this figure presumably does not
comprise claims against the other defendants.76 Additionally, paragraph thirteen of the amended
complaint states that the maritime lien on the M/V STRANDJA totals “$51,682.37 plus any
damages Marquette is legally responsible for in this matter,” thereby indicating that the maritime
lien itself may well exceed $51,682.37.77 Moreover, Marquette dismissed the amended complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A) before any party filed an answer.78 The
effect of a Rule 41(a) dismissal “is to put the plaintiff in a legal position as if he had never brought
the [] suit.”79 Accordingly, the amended complaint does not vitiate Marquette’s original good
faith assertion of federal diversity jurisdiction.

Second, Balkan offers an email and corresponding exhibits from Marquette’s counsel in
support of its claim that the amount in controversy falls below the statutory requirement.80 The
email references Marquette’s “$51,682.37 damage claim” in the “STRANDJA Litigation,” but
proceeds to state that “Marquette requests security from STRANDJA in the amount of

75 Rec. Doc. 29 at 1.
76 Id. at 6.
77 Id.
78 Rec. Doc. 53.
79 LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601, 603 (5th Cir. 1976) (internal citations omitted).
80 Rec. Doc. 56-3.
$77,635.”81 Accordingly, nothing in the email suggests that Marquette’s total damages in this
litigation fall below the amount in controversy required for the exercise of this Court’s federal
diversity jurisdiction.

Third, in opposition to the motion to strike jury demand, Marquette offers an affidavit
from its attorney representing that Marquette’s damages at the time the complaint was filed
exceeded $75,000.82 The affiant declares that Marquette’s damages include liability from alleged
“maintenance and cure exposure in excess of $75,000 due to the potential claim of its former
crewmember Demarkus Beckham who stated he fell and injured his neck and back during the
collision and stopped working at Marquette as a result of the incident.”83
Unlike in the context of removal, where “[t]here is a strong presumption that the plaintiff
has not claimed a large amount in order to confer jurisdiction on a federal court,” when the
plaintiff files in a federal forum the sum alleged by the plaintiff controls so long as it is made in
good faith, unless it appears to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the

jurisdictional amount.84 Given both the plain language of the complaint and the scope of potential
damages arising from the alleged maritime collision, the Court finds that Marquette in good faith
alleges an amount in controversy in excess of the jurisdictional requirement. Furthermore, Balkan
has not demonstrated to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional
amount.

81 Id.
82 Rec. Doc 60-1.
83 Rec. Doc. 60 at 12. Balkan’s assertion that Marquette’s damages total $51,682.37 allots only $122 in
medical bills. Rec. Doc. 56-1 at 8. Given the severity of injuries allegedly sustained by Marquette’s
crewmember, this figure strikes the Court as quite low.
84 St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co., 303 U.S. at 288–90.
B. Whether Marquette has a Right to a Jury Trial for its Claims Against Balkan
The second question before this Court is whether no right to a jury trial actually exists on
Marquette’s claims against Balkan.85 Balkan argues that Marquette’s actions demonstrate that it

elected to proceed in admiralty and thereby strip Marquette of its right to a jury trial.86 Marquette
denies that it intended to proceed against Balkan in admiralty and insists that it pleaded diversity
jurisdiction as the sole basis for the exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction over its claims against
Balkan.87 Consequently, Marquette contends that it preserved its right to trial by jury.88
The Court finds that Marquette’s right to a jury trial on its claims against Balkan is
preserved for four reasons. First, Marquette clearly elected to bring its original claims against
Balkan pursuant to this Court’s federal diversity jurisdiction. Other district courts have held that
“demanding a jury trial is inconsistent with an intent to designate a claim as a maritime claim
under Rule 9(h) and to invoke admiralty jurisdiction.”89 In the complaint, Marquette pleads
diversity jurisdiction and requests a jury trial.90 Moreover, Marquette does not invoke admiralty

jurisdiction or evince an intent to invoke Rule 9(h) anywhere in the complaint.91 In other words,
Marquette has clearly chosen to proceed against Balkan pursuant to this Court’s federal diversity

85 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 39.
86 Rec Doc. 56-1 at 9.
87 Rec. Doc. 60 at 14, 16.
88 Id. at 19.
89 Seemann v. Coastal Envtl. Grp., Inc., 2016 WL 7388537, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. July 2, 2016) (collecting cases);
see also 2 Admiralty & Mar. Law § 21:2 (6th ed.) (“[I]f the pleader wants to avoid admiralty (usually
because a jury trial is desired), counsel should plead diversity jurisdiction and demand a jury in the
complaint.”)
90 Rec. Doc. 1 at 1, 3.
91 See Rec. Doc. 1.
jurisdiction.
Second, Marquette does not plead admiralty jurisdiction with respect to its claims against
Balkan. Balkan argues that Marquette’s admission of admiralty jurisdiction in its answer to

Balkan’s counterclaim demonstrates Marquette’s intent to proceed in admiralty.92 Crucially,
Marquette’s admission of admiralty jurisdiction is only in response to Balkan’s counterclaim,
which Balkan designates as an admiralty claim within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1333 and Rule
9(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.93 In other words, Balkan properly designates its
counterclaim in this Court’s admiralty jurisdiction, and Marquette only admits admiralty
jurisdiction insofar as it applies to Balkan’s claim.
Third, Marquette’s invocation of admiralty procedures in its third-party complaint does
not demonstrate Marquette’s intention to proceed in admiralty on its claims against Balkan. In
the third-party complaint against Crescent and Johnson, Marquette invokes admiralty procedures
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(c), available only in admiralty, by tendering Crescent

and Johnson as direct defendants to Balkan.94 Because Balkan specifies that it brings its
counterclaims in the Court’s admiralty jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 9(h),95 Marquette, as third-
party plaintiff, is able to invoke Rule 14(c) admiralty procedures without sacrificing the right to
a jury trial on its original claims. Therefore, Marquette’s invocation of admiralty procedures in
response to Balkan’s counterclaim does not override its original election to proceed in diversity
on its original claims.

92 Rec. Doc. 56-1 at 11; Rec. Doc. 17 at 1–2.
93 Rec. Doc. 6 at 4.
94 Rec. Doc. 17 at 6, 12. Rule 14(c) is a third-party impleader procedure available exclusively in admiralty.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(c).
95 Rec. Doc. 6 at 9.
Marquette’s direct claims against Crescent and Johnson brought pursuant to this Court’s
admiralty jurisdiction96 also do not affect its right to a jury trial on its claims against Balkan. The
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Luera is instructive.97 There,

the plaintiff asserted both in rem admiralty claims and in personam claims premised on diversity
jurisdiction.98 The Fifth Circuit addressed the issue of “whether the plaintiff automatically makes
a Rule 9(h) election to proceed under the admiralty rules when she specifically asserts only
diversity jurisdiction for one claim in the same complaint as a separate claim cognizable only
under admiralty jurisdiction.”99
In Luera, the Fifth Circuit rejected the defendants’ contention that the “mere presence” of
an admiralty claim amounts to a Rule 9(h) election for the remainder of the plaintiff’s claims
because “by its plain language, Rule 9(h) applies to ‘claims’ and not to entire cases.”100 The Luera
court reasoned that because the plaintiff “clearly expressed her intent that her claims against the
in personam defendants are premised on the district court’s diversity jurisdiction,” the plaintiff

preserved her Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial for those claims.101 Like the plaintiff in
Luera, Marquette clearly expressed its intent to proceed pursuant to this Court’s diversity
jurisdiction with respect to its claims against Balkan.102

96 Rec. Doc. 17 at 5.
97 635 F.3d at 187.
98 Id. Notably, in this case, Marquette brings its admiralty claims in a separate complaint, thereby presenting
a much simpler case than Luera.
99 Id. at 189.
100 Id. at 190.
101 Id. at 185, 190.
102 Unlike the plaintiff in Luera, Marquette brought in personam claims against Crescent and Johnson
pursuant to this Court’s admiralty jurisdiction. This is a distinction without a difference, however, because
Similarly, in William P. Brooks Const. Co., Inc. v. Guthrie, the Fifth Circuit held that the
district court was not divested of its original admiralty jurisdiction by the defendant’s contractual
defense set out in his cross-action.103 Although the instant action presents the inverse situation—

Balkan argues that its counterclaim, and Marquette’s subsequent answer, changes the nature of
the suit from one in diversity to one in admiralty—the Court abides by the Fifth Circuit’s
reasoning that the plaintiff’s original election, if clear, controls.104 To decide otherwise would
suggest that any defendant seeking to avoid a jury trial could simply plead its counterclaim in
admiralty to strip the plaintiff of its constitutional right to trial by jury. Such an obvious
workaround would violate the well-established maxim that “the plaintiff is the master of the
complaint.”105
Finally, Balkan’s argument that Marquette’s amended complaint demonstrates its intent
to proceed in this Court’s admiralty jurisdiction is misplaced for two independent reasons. First,
in the amended complaint, Marquette “reallege[d] and re-aver[red] all allegations of its original

complaint and third-party complaint as fully and completely as if copied herein in extenso,”106
thereby retaining its original claim against Balkan and the attendant jury trial right. The amended
complaint merely added the M/V STRANDJA as an in rem defendant,107 a separate claim

Luera makes clear that jurisdiction is evaluated individually for each claim.
103 614 F.2d 509, 511 (5th Cir. 1980).
104 Id. at 510–11.
105 Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 398–99 (1987); see also Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 809, n. 6 (1986) (“Jurisdiction may not be sustained on a theory that the plaintiff
has not advanced”).
106 Id. at 1 (internal citations omitted).
107 Rec. Doc. 29.
available exclusively in the admiralty jurisdiction of this federal Court.108 Second, the amended
complaint was later dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) and therefore
has no bearing on Marquette’s present legal position.109

Because Marquette unequivocally expressed its intent to proceed pursuant to this Court’s
diversity jurisdiction with respect to its claims against Balkan, the Court finds that Marquette’s
Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial on its claims against Balkan is unaffected by subsequent
pleadings.
C. Whether Balkan’s Counterclaims Should be Tried by a Jury
In the opposition memorandum, Marquette also urges the Court to exercise its judicial
discretion to order that Marquette’s claims and Balkan’s counterclaims be tried by a jury to “avoid
the inefficiencies of a bifurcated trial.”110 Balkan does not address this issue in its memorandum
in support of the motion to strike jury demand or its reply memorandum.111 Although there is no
constitutional prohibition against jury trials in admiralty cases,112 “[t]he question of the

availability of jury trials in admiralty is unduly complex.”113 Marquette has not filed a motion
requesting that all claims be tried by a jury. Instead, Marquette only raises the issue in its
opposition to the instant motion. Therefore, the Court declines to rule on this issue until it is

108 Madruga v. Superior Court, 346 U.S. 556, 560 (1954); see also Luera, 635 F.3d at 192 n. 6 (noting that
that “although Luera did use admiralty procedures for her in rem claims, she did not use the benefits of
admiralty procedures for the same claim on which she now demands a jury trial”) (emphasis in original).
109 LeCompte, 528 F.2d 601 at 603 (internal citations omitted).
110 Rec. Doc. 60 at 19.
111 See Rec. Doc. 56-1; Rec. Doc. 64.
112 Fitzgerald v. United States Lines Co., 374 U.S. 16, 20 (1963) (“While this court has held that the Seventh
Amendment does not require jury trials in admiralty cases, neither that amendment nor any other provision
of the Constitution forbids them.”)
113 2 Admiralty & Mar. Law § 21:10 (5th ed.).
presented in a properly filed motion.
V. Conclusion
Considering the foregoing reasons, Marquette has preserved its Seventh Amendment jury
trial right for its in personam claims against Balkan. The presence of admiralty claims in this
same action does not defeat that right. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Balkan’s motion to strike jury demand is DENIED.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this Ist day of October, 2020.

NANNETTE JOLIVEATE BROWN _ □□
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10185978. Public record. Not legal advice.