concluding that the "but-for" test was satisfied and OCSLA jurisdiction existed where "[a]n ocean-going vessel ... allided with a platform secured to the outer continental shelf some 35 miles off the coast of Louisiana," id. at 152, because "there would not have been an accident had Tennessee Gas not built its platform to extract minerals from the OCS," id. at 155
How later courts described this case
- concluding that the "but-for" test was satisfied and OCSLA jurisdiction existed where "[a]n ocean-going vessel ... allided with a platform secured to the outer continental shelf some 35 miles off the coast of Louisiana," id. at 152, because "there would not have been an accident had Tennessee Gas not built its platform to extract minerals from the OCS," id. at 155
- noting that “maritime claims do not ‘aris[e] under the . . . laws of the United States’ for purposes of federal question and removal jurisdiction.” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (b) (2011)) (emphasis added)
- holding that “removal is consistent with the second sentence of § 1441(b), if not the first”
- using “but-for” test to find jurisdiction when a boat collided with a platform, even though the accident was argued to be a “navigational” error and the mineral operation in question did nothing to cause the accident
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur, but in doing so I simply observe that the majority’s discussion of the applicability of the first sentence of 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (b) to claims over which we have original jurisdiction under 43 U.S.C. § 1349 , Slip Op., at 4202-4203, is unnecessary to decide this case, and thus constitutes only dicta.