Lopez v. Quality Construction & Production, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ROLANDO LOPEZ CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
QUALITY CONSTRUCTION &
PRODUCTION, LLC. ET AL. NO. 20-00250-BAJ-EWD
ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion to Strike Jury Demand (Doc. 82), filed by
Defendants C&G Boats, Inc. and M N M BOATS, INC., in which Defendants ask the
Court to strike Plaintiffs demand for a jury trial and instead hear this case in a bench
trial. For reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Defendants' motion and grant
Plaintiffs jury trial demand.
I. Procedural History
Plaintiff filed this case in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East
Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana on March 18, 2020. (Doc. 1-1). Defendants Quality
Construction & Production, LLC, who have since been dismissed, removed the case
to this Court claiming federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and
asserting the case is governed by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 42 U.S.C.
§1333(a)(2)(A). (Doc. 1). Current Defendants, C&G Boats, Inc. and M N M BOATS,
INC., had not yet been joined to the suit. However, the following month, C&G Boats,
Inc., was added as a Defendant to the suit and filed an Answer to the Complaint with
Jury Demand. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff filed for remand. (Doc. 8; Doc. 45). The Court found
Case 3:20-cv-00250-BAJ-EWD Document 118 12/15/25 Page 1 of 6

removal appropriate and denied Plaintiffs request for remand, finding that federal
jurisdiction existed under OCSLA. (Doc. 51). In a separate Order issued the same
day, the Court also found that Plaintiff Rolando Lopez was not a seaman as defined
by the Jones Act and dismissed his unseaworthiness claims against Defendants
accordingly. (Doc. 52). Thereafter, Plaintiff amended his Complaint, asserting
jurisdiction for his suit under OCSLA and including a demand for trial by jury. (Doc.
59). Defendants oppose Plaintiffs demand. (Doc. 82). Plaintiff responded. (Doc. 90).
Defendants submitted supplemental briefing. (Doc. 99).
II. Legal Standard
"Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(h), a plaintiff whose claims are
cognizable within the [c]ourt's admiralty jurisdiction 'and also within the court's
subject-matter jurisdiction on some other ground' may choose to proceed on the
admiralty side of the [cjourt." LeBlanc v. Panther Helicopters, 2015 WL 350285 at *5
(E.D. La. Jan. 26, 2015) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(h)). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
9(h) provides:
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
for purposes of Rules 14(c), 38(e), and 82 and the Supplemental Rules
for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. A claim
cognizable only in the admiralty or maritime jurisdiction is an admiralty
or maritime claim for those purposes, whether or not so designated.
"[Tjo proceed on the admiralty side of the court, a plaintiff may choose to
include a statement in the complaint designating the claim as an admiralty or
maritime claim, but an express Rule 9(h) election - although preferable - is not
Case 3:20-cv-00250-BAJ-EWD Document 118 12/15/25 Page 2 of 6

required so long as the complaint includes a simple statement identifying the claim
as an admiralty or maritime claim." Ensco Offshore, LLC v. Cantium, LLC, No. CV
24-371, 2024 WL 1801855, at *2 (E.D. La. Apr. 25, 2024) (citing T.N.T. Marine Serv.,
Inc. v. Weaver Shipyards & Dry Docks, Inc., 702 F.2d 585, 586-87 (5th Cir. 1983)). If
a plaintiff does not make an express reference to Rule 9(h) in their complaint, a court
should look to the totality of circumstances to determine if [the plaintiff] made the
required 'simple statement' to 'properly invoke the district court's admiralty
jurisdiction.' " Poincon v. Offshore Marine Contractors, Inc., 9 F.4th 289, 294 (5th Cir.
2021) (quoting Bodden v. Osgood, 879 F.2d 184, 186 (5th Cir. 1989)). Under the court's
admiralty jurisdiction, plaintiffs are not entitled to a jury trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(e).
However, when claims are brought under the district courts subject matter
jurisdiction through OCSLA, trial by jury is a plaintiffs prerogative. Apache Corp. v.
Global Santa Fe Drilling Co., 832 F. Supp. 2d 678, 698 (W.D. La. 2010) (finding that
where federal jurisdiction exists under OCSLA and no 9(h) designation was made,
the right to jury trial remains), aff'd, 435 F. App'x 322 (5th Cir. 2011).
III. Analysis
Defendants assert that Plaintiffs remaining claims "are only cognizable under
this Court's admiralty jurisdiction which confers no right to a jury trial." (Doc. 82-1
at 3). Plaintiff counters that "this Court's jurisdiction is founded on OCSLA" and he
thus retains an "undeniable right to a jury trial." (Doc. 90 at 1). Defendants respond
that, while Plaintiff did not expressly invoke admiralty jurisdiction under Rule 9(h),
he nonetheless makes a "simple statement identifying the claim as an admiralty or
Case 3:20-cv-00250-BAJ-EWD Document 118 12/15/25 Page 3 of 6

maritime claim" in his pleadings. (Doc. 99 at 3). Defendants also seemingly attempt
to re-open the issue of whether jurisdiction exists under OCSLA, an issue the Court
has already decided, by asserting that Plaintiffs remaining claims are "cognizable
only in admiralty." (Doc. 99 at 5). The Court disagrees. (Doc. 51).
Defendants cite to T.N.T. M-arine Services, Inc. v. Weaver Shipyards & Dry
Docks, Inc., 702 F.2d 585, 587-88 (5th Cir. 1983) in support of its assertion that
Plaintiffs suit must be brought under admiralty jurisdiction, claiming there is
implicit language in Plaintiffs Complaint sufficient to constitute a 9(h) "simple
statement" invoking admiralty jurisdiction. (Doc. 99 at 4). The Court disagrees.
Indeed, in T.N.T., the court found that although plaintiffs complaint stated
otherwise, the claims were only cognizable under admiralty due to a statement in the
operative complaint averring that "this is also a suit for breach of a maritime contract
and for maritime tort". 702 F.2d at 588. However, the court immediately thereafter
referred to Rule 9(h)'s liberal procedures for amending complaints and suggests that
the plaintiff may have preserved a right to jury trial by amending his complaint to
clarify the "identifying statement". Id. That is exactly what Plaintiff here has done to
make clear his desire not to invoke rule 9(h) and to assert federal question jurisdiction
under OCSLA. (Doc. 59 at 1). Plaintiff also removed references to admiralty
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 from his original complaint. {See Doc. 1-1).
In Leblanc v. Panther Helicopters, Inc., the court grappled with a nearly
identical instance of ambiguity of jurisdiction. No.l4cvl617, 2015 WL 350285 (E.D.
La. Jan. 26, 2015) (Barbier, J.). There, plaintiff brought claims under OCSLA and
Case 3:20-cv-00250-BAJ-EWD Document 118 12/15/25 Page 4 of 6

general maritime law. The Leblanc court found that "[something more than the fact
that Plaintiffs happened to assert alternative claims under general maritime law
therefore was required to indicate that Plaintiffs wished to proceed in admiralty.
2015 WL 350285 at *5. Here, rather than asserting alternative jurisdiction, Plaintiff
has expressly asserted his desire not to proceed in admiralty by including as the sole
basis for jurisdiction in his operative Complaint 43 U.S.C. § 1349(b)(l). (Doc. 59 at
p.l). While perhaps not perfectly crafted, it is nonetheless clear that Plaintiff asserts
jurisdiction in this Court under OCSLA and further demands trial by jury. (Doc. 59
at p.22). Defendants take issue with Plaintiffs references to Defendants' alleged
liability under general maritime law for unseaworthiness, claiming that this invokes
admiralty jurisdiction. (Doc. 99 at 3-4; Doc. 59 at p. 14-16). As discussed previously,
Plaintiffs claims against Defendants for unseaworthiness have already been
dismissed. (Doc. 52). Under the "totality of circumstances" standard, the Court does
not find reference to these now-dismissed unseaworthiness claims sufficient to
indicate that Plaintiff wished to proceed in admiralty. Bodden v. Osgood, 879 F.2d
184, 186 (5th Cir. 1989).
A recent case from the Eastern District of Louisiana is also instructive here.
Trigleth v. Ocean Belt Mar., Inc., No. CV 23-65, 2025 WL 2499088 (E.D. La. June 13,
2025) (Ashe, J.). There, a plaintiff brought similar claims for unseaworthiness and
personal injury in his original complaint. Id. His unseaworthiness claims were
dismissed and he subsequently amended his complaint to remove reference to the
court's admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 and to add a demand for jury
Case 3:20-cv-00250-BAJ-EWD Document 118 12/15/25 Page 5 of 6

trial. Id. The Trigleth court found this sufficiently clear that the plaintiff was not
invoking the court's admiralty jurisdiction under 9(h) and was instead asserting the
courts diversity jurisdiction. Id. Though Plaintiff here instead invokes federal
question jurisdiction rather than diversity jurisdiction, it does not change the
outcome. Plaintiff was clear enough in his Second Amended Complaint that he wished
to bring his claims under the court's federal question jurisdiction through OCSLA
and not admiralty jurisdiction. (Doc. 59). He has thus retained the right to a jury
trial.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Strike Jury Demand (Doc.
82) is hereby DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the bench trial currently scheduled to
begin on January 26, 2026 at 8:30 A.M. in Courtoom 2 is hereby RESET as a jury
trial for the same.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this s/—|.ay of December, 2025
/Lfi.
JUDGE BRIAN A. P^CKSON
UNITED STATES mSTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
6
Case 3:20-cv-00250-BAJ-EWD Document 118 12/15/25 Page 6 of 6