The Judiciary Act of 1789 declared that the federal District Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over causes of admiralty and maritime matters. However, the Act also includes the saving to suitor’s clause of 28 U.S.C.S. § 1333. The clause allows a party to pursue a remedy for a maritime claim in a state court when entitled to such remedy.
Hence, a party may pursue an in personam maritime claim in an ordinary civil action seeking a common-law remedy with the right to a jury trial. Maritime tort claims may accordingly be brought in state court pursuant to the clause.
The jurisdiction of the state court does not exclude the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts. Admiralty jurisdiction is exclusive only as to those maritime causes of action that are begun and carried on as proceedings in rem — that is, where a vessel or thing is itself treated as the offender and made the defendant by name or description in order to enforce a right. Therefore, if a suit is in personam, a claimant may bring the action either in admiralty or, because of the savings clause, in a state court by ordinary civil action. Where the suit is in rem, however, only the admiralty court has jurisdiction. Therefore, in maritime causes of action, the District Courts and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction.
Jurisdictional Effect
The saving to suitors clause permits a party to pursue an in personam maritime claim in a state court through an ordinary civil action seeking a common law remedy. State and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over this common law remedy. Although state courts do not have jurisdiction over in rem maritime actions, the courts can adopt such remedies and attach such incidents as they see fit, without making changes to substantive maritime law. The saving to suitor clause is an exception to the exclusive admiralty or maritime jurisdiction of federal courts. However, the jurisdiction of state courts does not exclude the admiralty jurisdiction of federal courts.
A proceeding in a state court cannot be objected to on the ground that the cause of action is maritime in nature. However, admiralty and maritime claims brought under the savings to suitors clause are not removable to a federal court unless there exists some independent basis of federal jurisdiction.[i]
[i]Vitale v. Longshore Sailing Sch., Inc. (In re Longshore Sailing Sch., Inc.), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4099 (D. Conn. Jan. 19, 2010)
Proceedings in Personam as within Savings Clause
The U.S. Supreme Court has said that although the state courts do not have jurisdiction provide a remedy in rem for a maritime cause of action, a state, is free to adopt such remedies, and to attach to them such incidents, as it sees fit so long as it does not attempt to make changes in the “substantive maritime law.” [i] Claims within the saving to suitor clause includes actions to recover damages for a tort, actions for fishermen’s wages, actions by an injured seaman under the Jones Act, action to recover for certain diving services for the inspection and possible salvage operation of cargo aboard a sunken vessel. The clause confers concurrent jurisdiction of maritime wrongful death actions in state and federal courts.
[i] Madruga v. Superior Court of California, 346 U.S. 556 (U.S. 1954)
Proceedings in Rem as not within Savings Clause
The saving to suitors clause merely excepts from the exclusive admiralty or maritime jurisdiction of the federal courts all cases in which suits may be brought to obtain other than admiralty remedies to which suitors are otherwise entitled. Jurisdiction of admiralty court is exclusive only as to those maritime causes of action that are begun and carried on as proceedings in rem — that is, where a vessel or thing is itself treated as the offender and made the defendant by name or description in order to enforce a right.
Therefore, where the suit is in rem, only the admiralty court has jurisdiction.[i]
The foundation of jurisdiction in rem is the taking of the vessel into the custody of the court and the characteristic virtue of a proceeding in rem is that it operates directly upon the res as the so called respondent in the suit and the actual subject-matter of the jurisdiction. An admiralty court by seizure in rem acquires jurisdiction of all interests in the res and by decree in rem binds all.
However, remedy in rem in cases of forfeiture of vessel falls within the scope of the “saving to suitors” clause, because the common law recognized such a remedy.
[i] Pasternack v. Lubetich, 11 Wn. App. 265 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974)
Exception for Forfeiture Cases
The common law recognized a remedy in rem in cases of forfeiture.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that it is a common law remedy. Therefore, remedy in forfeiture cases must be considered as a remedy falling within the scope of the “saving to suitors” clause. The Judiciary Act of 1789 allows the states to provide remedy in forfeiture cases where the articles are seized upon navigable waters of the state for violation of state law. [i] However, it has been held that forfeiture of a vessel involved in illegal fishing in waters is a proceeding exclusively under admiralty jurisdiction.
The court held that state court do not have jurisdiction because the court of a particular county does not have jurisdiction over the high seas. [ii]
[i] C. J. Hendry Co. v. Moore, 318 U.S. 133 (U.S. 1943)
[ii] The Bessie Mac, 21 F. Supp. 220 (D. Wash. 1937)
Equitable Claims Under “Saving to Suitors” Clause
The state courts, under the saving to suitors clause, can entertain suits in both equity and at law. The right of a common law remedy includes all means except admiralty proceedings that may be employed to enforce the right or redress the injury involved. It also includes judicial remedies conferred by statute, as well as those existing at common law, remedies in equity, as well as those enforceable in a court of law. [i] Since admiralty courts do not have jurisdiction of primarily equitable claims, jurisdiction of state courts over an equitable claim arising from a maritime matter exists independently of the saving to suitor clause.
[i] Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438 (U.S. 2001)
