United States District Court, Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division
WILLIAM H. STEELE, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This matter is before the Court to resolve whether and to what extent a jury trial is provided. The interested parties have filed briefs in support of their respective positions, (Docs. 38, 39, 42), and the issue is ripe for resolution. After careful consideration, the Court concludes that no party is entitled to a jury trial on any claim.
According to the pleadings, Atlas Towing, LLC (“Atlas”) owned the M/V Captain JJ, which it leased to Ivy Marine Consultants, L.L.C. (“Ivy”). The plaintiff issued Ivy a marine insurance policy, after which the vessel sank, sustaining damage exceeding its insured value.
The plaintiff filed this declaratory judgment action against Ivy, seeking a declaration that it has no obligation to pay for any damage to the vessel. The complaint asserts the following:
Jurisdiction of this Court is founded upon 28 U.S.C. § 1333 as this is an admiralty and maritime dispute and upon 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as this is a dispute between citizens of different states and involves an amount in controversy in excess of $75, 000 exclusive of interest and costs. This is also an admiralty and maritime claim within the meaning of Rule 9(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Courts.
(Doc. 1 at 2, ¶ 4). The complaint did not demand a jury trial.
Ivy filed an answer admitting the allegations of paragraph 4 and demanding a jury trial. (Doc. 14 at 1). Ivy also filed a counterclaim demanding a jury trial, based on diversity of citizenship. (Doc. 15 at 1). The counterclaim asserts claims for breach of contract, bad faith refusal to pay/investigate, and negligent/wanton investigation of the loss. (Id. at 4-8).
Atlas successfully moved to intervene. (Docs. 25, 27). Atlas filed a consolidated answer, counterclaim and third-party complaint. (Doc. 28). Atlas admitted diversity jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim but was silent as to admiralty jurisdiction or Rule 9(h) regarding that claim. (Id. at 2). Atlas filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff, asserting the same claims as Ivy and basing jurisdiction on diversity. (Id. at 9). Atlas also filed a third-party complaint against Vice Construction Co. (“Vice”), as to which it based jurisdiction on diversity and admiralty and which it identified as “an admiralty and maritime claim within the meaning of Rule 9(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Id. at 2, 19). Atlas demanded a jury trial as to its counterclaim but not as to its third-party claim. (Id. at 17).
Prior to entry of a Rule 16(b) scheduling order, the parties asked the Magistrate Judge for guidance as to “whether a jury is allowed in this matter.” (Doc. 35 at 1). The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that “[a] briefing order will be entered by Chief Judge Steele to address the issue of whether this action should be tried by a jury or by a judge alone.” (Doc. 36 at 7). The Court did so, resulting in the briefing now under consideration.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “do not create a right to a jury trial on issues in a claim that is an admiralty or maritime claim under Rule 9(h).” Fed.R.Civ.P. 38(e).
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 ...