Is There a Right to a Jury Trial for Death on the High Seas Act Claims Not Designated as Admiralty Claims?

Retired Judge Gertner and I have filed an amicus brief in support of certiorari to answer the question, which has important important implications for admiralty jurisdiction.

A certiorari petition is pending raising an important issue about admiralty jurisdiction and claims raised under the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA), 46 U.S.C. §§ 30301-30308. Along with retired Judge Nancy Gertner, I filed an amicus brief supporting certiorari to make clear that jury trial rights are protected under DOHSA for claims that have not been designated as admiralty claims.

The pending petition concerns a wrongful-death case, arising out of the tragic Boeing 737 MAX crash into the Java Sea. The petition raises a fundamental question about admiralty jurisdiction. The estate and family of Andrea Manfredi, who died in the crash, brought in personam wrongful-death claims against Boeing and others under DOHSA. These claims can be heard in admiralty, but they also satisfy the requirements for diversity and multiparty, multiforum jurisdiction. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "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"—but need not—"designate the claim as an admiralty or maritime claim." Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(h). The Manfredis did not so designate their claims. The Seventh Circuit nevertheless held that these DOHSA claims are subject to exclusive admiralty jurisdiction in federal court, meaning no jury-trial right applies. The court so held despite recognizing that the same claims could be heard in state court, where they "are typically tried by juries."

The Manfredis have filed cert petition, seeking review of this question: Whether a federal court can have exclusive admiralty jurisdiction over a claim when a non-admiralty state court would have concurrent jurisdiction over the same claim.

Judge Gertner and I have both presided over many jury trials and believe Seventh Amendment jury trial rights are important. We have filed an amicus brief supporting cert and the right to a jury trial in these circumstances. Here's our brief's introduction:

No court should curtail the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in cases at law brought by plaintiffs properly invoking diversity jurisdiction and multiparty, multiforum jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1369. Here, the Manfredi family brought a wrongful-death action against Boeing and other defendants under that jurisdiction. Although the surviving family members potentially could have invoked the district court's admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333, they decided not to do so.

The Manfredi family demanded a jury trial, and they specifically elected not to make a declaration under Rule 9(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to assert admiralty jurisdiction under Section 1333. In cases like this one, in which a plaintiff has done nothing affirmative to invoke admiralty jurisdiction, federal courts must consider the action only on the basis of diversity jurisdiction and not admiralty jurisdiction. Yet that is not what the Seventh Circuit did here.

The Death on the High Seas Act gives plaintiffs a choice. It states that a plaintiff "may bring a civil action in admiralty" when the death of an individual is caused by a wrongful act or neglect. 46 U.S.C. § 30302 (emphasis added). Here, the Seventh Circuit misinterpreted that permissive statutory language to make it mandatory—holding that DOHSA "require[s] cases to be brought in admiralty."

The Seventh Circuit's ruling is at odds with well-settled principles of federal jurisdiction and constitutional law. The decision should be reversed, and this Court should resolve the circuit split in favor of jury trials in these circumstances.

Several law professors who are experts on admiralty and maritime law (Professors Martin Davies, Robert Force, Steven Friedell, Thomas C. Galligan, Jr., and Thomas Schoenbaum) have filed a separate amicus brief supporting cert. Among other things, they argue that the Seventh Circuit's approach contradicts the original understanding of admiralty jurisdiction:

The Seventh Circuit's approach contradicts the original understanding of how admiralty and common law jurisdiction interact. Multiple Justices of the Court have previously expressed strong concerns about the very type of non-textual, ahistorical approach to admiralty jurisdiction exemplified by the Seventh Circuit decision. The "Court pursues clarity and efficiency in other areas of federal subject-matter jurisdiction, and it should demand no less in admiralty and maritime law." Jerome Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 555 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring); id. at 548 (O'Connor, J., concurring) (Denying "that, having found admiralty jurisdiction over a particular claim against a particular party, a court must then exercise admiralty jurisdiction over all the claims and parties involved in the case. Rather, the Court should engage in the usual supplemental jurisdiction and impleader inquiries.") (emphasis original).

Our brief was written and filed by Jeffrey Beelaert at Givens Pursley. Note: Although I'm involved (on a pro bono basis) in the criminal proceedings against Boeing in the Northern District of Texas, I have no involvement in these civil proceedings, which originated in the Northern District of Illinois.