Saving to Suitors Clause While Federal Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1333, “the saving to suitors clause states that ‘district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of ... [a]ny civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.’” In re Illinois Marine Towing, Inc., 498 F.3d 645, 650 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) (emphasis added)). The saving to suitors clause has been interpreted as “preserv[ing] common law remedies and concurrent state court jurisdiction over some admiralty and maritime claims.”

Defendants next move under Rule 12(f) to strike Plaintiffs' jury demand. Plaintiff Boone, however, has a right to a jury trial under 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1)'s saving-to-suitors clause. See Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438, 454 - 55 (2001) ("Trial by jury is an obvious, but not exclusive, example of the remedies available to suitors.")

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction of “[a]ny civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.” 28 U.S.C. § 1333. A party invoking admiralty jurisdiction must satisfy both a location test and a connection test.

On October 20, 2017, Defendants filed their notices of removal (together, “NOR”). Their detailed, 32-page NOR listed seven grounds for removal but did not invoke admiralty jurisdiction as a basis for removal; it does not so much as cite 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Defendants’ failure to invoke admiralty jurisdiction in the NOR constitutes waiver.

Paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint is deleted in the Second Amended Complaint and the paragraph numbers of the Second Amended Complaint are changed to accommodate the deletion; 2. Reference to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1333 in paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint is deleted in the Second Amended Complaint; 3. Language is added to paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint so that the end of the corresponding paragraph in the Second Amended Complaint now states, ".

In this context, merely labeling Blue Water a “freight forwarder” in the Complaint is insufficient to give rise to maritime jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim. B. TORT CLAIMS “[A] party seeking to invoke federal admiralty jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) over a tort claim must satisfy conditions both of location and of connection with maritime activity.” Grubart, Inc., v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 115 S.Ct. 1043, 1048 (1995).

B. ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION IS APPLICABLE AS A U.S. NAVY RESCUE MISSION CONSTITUTES TRADITIONAL MARITIME ACTIVITY In rejecting Plaintiffs’ reliance on admiralty jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1333(1)5, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ claims fail to satisfy the 5

at 129. That the district court took the case “under diversity jurisdiction, rather than admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333,” did not affect the Court of Appeals’ determination. Id.

To the extent Underwriters assert that maritime law modifies the analysis to determine appropriate venue, the action does not invoke admiralty jurisdiction. Underwriters state that maritime jurisdiction applies “pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) in that all asserted claims derive from policies of marine insurance, each of which are maritime contracts subject to the federal admiralty jurisdiction.” (See Am. Compl. ¶ 7, see also ¶ 8 (the “policies provide insurance coverage for goods at sea, in inland marine transportation and storage as those terms are customarily used in the marine insurance industry.”)

The Court Does Not Have Admiralty Jurisdiction Over This Case Underwriters’ cause of action does not invoke maritime jurisdiction. Underwriters assert that maritime jurisdiction applies “pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) in that all asserted claims derive from policies of marine insurance, each of which are maritime contracts subject to the federal admiralty jurisdiction.” (See Compl.