Moe v. Eagle Ocean Transp. Co.

91 F. Supp. 910, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2853
District Court, S.D. Texas·Decided June 2, 1950·No. Civ. A. No. 1151·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

KENNERLY, Chief Judge.

This suit, brought under the Jones Act, Section 688, Title 46 U.S.C.A., in a State Court, has been removed into this Court. Plaintiff moves to remand. Defendant, in a very able brief, insists that under the Judicial Code of September 1, 1948 (Title 28) a suit under the Jones Act may now be removed into this Court. It insists that Gutierrez v. Pacific Tankers, Inc., D.C., 81 F.Supp. 278, was not correctly decided.

With this, I cannot agree. A careful reading of Section 6881 convinces [911] me that even with the change of wording of the old Section 71 of Title 28, U.S.C.A., which defendant points out,2 and notwithstanding the wording of Section 1441 of the Judicial Code,3 suits filed in a State Court under the Jones Act are not removable to a United States District Court. Section 688 confers upon seamen et al. the same rights and all the rights enjoyed by persons suing a railroad, its receivers or trustees, i. e., the right to sue in a State Court, and such suit is not removable.

There is nothing to indicate that the Congress, by changing the wording pointed out, meant to change the well-settled rule with respect to removal from State Courts to the Federal Courts of suits under the Jones Act.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is granted. Let proper Order be drawn and presented.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Moe v. Eagle Ocean Transp. Co., 91 F. Supp. 910, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2853 (S.D. Tex. 1950).

91 F. Supp. 910 (Moe v. Eagle Ocean Transp. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

David Preston v. Grant Advertising, Inc.
375 F.2d 439 (Fifth Circuit, 1967)
Crespo v. Pacific-Atlantic S. S. Co.
117 F. Supp. 504 (S.D. New York, 1953)