Opinion
Civil Action No. 04-873 Section "L" (2).
December 22, 2004
Order Reasons
Before the Court is the Motion of the Defendant to Dismiss the case, which came before the Court for hearing on the briefs. For the following reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion and DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims for lack of jurisdiction.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
This case arises out of injuries allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff on June 13, 2003, while making repairs to the M/V Earl Gonsoulin. Plaintiff was employed by Cross Armature, a third-party not involved in the instant matter, and was assigned to work on the M/V Earl Gonsoulin while the vessel was moored to a dry dock owned and operated by the Defendant. The Defendant also owned the vessel. The Plaintiff alleges that he was injured while descending stairs from the vessel to the dry dock. The stairs were not affixed to the vessel nor were they part of the equipment of the vessel. Rather, the stairs were supplied by the dry dock. The Plaintiff claims that the stairs were unreasonably dangerous, defective, and improperly maintained by the Defendant.
Plaintiff filed suit in this Court on March 26, 2004, stating that the matter was properly before this Court pursuant to this Court's admiralty jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1333. The parties do not dispute that there is no other potential basis for jurisdiction in this Court.
Defendant now moves the Court to dismiss the matter on the grounds that this Court has no jurisdiction. Defendant argues that the matter does not fall within this Court's admiralty jurisdiction as the incident occurred on a dry dock, not a vessel. The Court agrees with the Defendant.
II. Analysis
It has long been settled, and the parties do not dispute, that a federal court's maritime and admiralty jurisdiction does not ordinarily extend to dry docks. See Cope v. Vallette Dry-Dock Co., 119 U.S. 625, 627 (1887); Atkins v. Greenville Shipbuilding Corp., 411 F.2d 279, 282-83 (5th Cir. 1969); Keiler v. Dravo Corp., 441 F.2d 1239, 1244 (5th Cir. 1971). The issue before the Court in this case is whether the stairs are properly considered an appurtenance of the vessel or an appurtenance of the dry dock. It is clear to the Court that the stairs are an appurtenance of the dry dock.
A party seeking to invoke admiralty jurisdiction over a tort claim must satisfy conditions both of location and of connection with maritime activity. Grubart v. Great Lakes Dredge Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 534 (1995). The Plaintiff concedes that the mobile stairs at issue were owned by the Defendant, located on the dry dock, and used to provide ingress and egress to the vessels docked at the Defendant's facility. ( See Comp., Rec. Doc. No. 1, at ¶¶ 4 5; Pl's Opp., Rec. Doc. No. 19, at pg. 1). However, Plaintiff claims that he was injured over navigable waters because he was descending the stairs at the time of the alleged incident. This argument simply strains logic. As Plaintiff was descending the stairs, he was over the dry dock. ( See Defs. Reply, Rec. Doc. No. 22, at Ex. I). The Admiralty Extension Act provides that "[t]he admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States shall extend to and include all cases of damage or injury, to person or property, caused by a vessel on navigable water, notwithstanding that such damage or injury be done or consummated on land." 46 App. U.S.C. § 740. Plaintiff argues that the incident was caused by the condition of the stairs, which were located on the dry dock. The existence of the vessel is incidental to Plaintiff's complaint. ( See Dobrovich v. Hotchkiss, 14 F.Supp. 2d 232 (D.Conn., July 27, 1998); White v. Bayou Fleet, 2003 WL 715754 (E.D.La., Feb. 25, 2003)). The Court finds as a matter of law that the Plaintiff can not satisfy the maritime locus/nexus test.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages is hereby GRANTED and Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby DISMISSED.