Opinion ID: 201761
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admiralty Case

Text: 8 The case at hand arises in admiralty and concerns the interpretation of two statutes that regulate the employment of seamen, 46 U.S.C. § 10601 and § 11107. Whether a case is an admiralty case turns on whether the plaintiff properly designated the action as an admiralty case. Wingerter, 185 F.3d at 664. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(h) governs the designation of admiralty claims: 9 A pleading or count setting forth a claim for relief within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction that is also within the jurisdiction of the district court on some other ground may contain a statement identifying the claim as an admiralty or maritime claim for the purposes of Rules 14(c), 38(e), 82, and the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims.... A case that includes an admiralty or maritime claim within this subdivision is an admiralty case within 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3). 10 The district court found that it had jurisdiction over the case below pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Huntress, 301 F.Supp.2d at 140, and also confirmed that [t]his case concerns a matter of admiralty law, id. at 140; see 28 U.S.C. § 1333. The district court specifically noted that plaintiffs alleged subject matter jurisdiction by virtue of this case arising in admiralty. Id. at 140 n. 3. As the underlying case was properly designated an admiralty case, it is also an admiralty case for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3). See Fed.R.Civ.P.9(h).