Opinion ID: 3066027
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The preliminary injunction at issue protects specific Shell vessels as they journey from shore-based facilities in the United States, through United States territorial waters, and into the waters of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone 5 The preliminary injunction ran from March 28, 2012, through October 31, 2012. See Shell Offshore, 864 F. Supp. 2d at 855. The district court did not explain why it so temporally limited the injunction. It appears, however, from its moving papers, that Shell sought a preliminary injunction only through the 2012 exploration drilling season. 14 SHELL OFFSHORE V . GREENPEACE (“EEZ”) where rigs attach to the Arctic seabed and conduct exploration activities. Greenpeace USA does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that, with regard to injunctive relief in the United States and its territorial waters, the court had subject matter jurisdiction based on diverse party citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Likewise, Greenpeace USA does not dispute that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”) gave the court jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief while Shell’s vessels are attached to the seabed. See 43 U.S.C. § 1333(a)(1) (extending jurisdiction to the “seabed of the outer Continental Shelf and to . . . devices permanently or temporarily attached to the seabed, which may be erected thereon for the purpose of exploring for, developing, or producing resources therefrom”). Greenpeace USA is now solely appealing the district court’s holding that under 28 U.S.C. § 1333, it had admiralty jurisdiction to enjoin conduct relating to vessels that were neither in U.S. territorial waters (where diversity jurisdiction extends) nor attached to the seabed (where OCSLA jurisdiction extends) – that is, vessels transiting through the U.S. EEZ.6 We need not decide whether § 1333 provides jurisdiction over this particular stretch of an oil rig’s journey because a court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the entire constitutional case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The common nucleus of operative facts underlying Shell’s claim for injunctive relief do not change when its vessels traverse an invisible line separating U.S. territorial waters from the waters of the U.S. EEZ, nor at the moment when its rigs detach from the seabed; this is therefore a single “case or 6 See Shell Offshore, 2012 W L 1931537, at . The district court did not reach the question of whether its diversity jurisdiction extended to the EEZ. Id. at  n.42. SHELL OFFSHORE V . GREENPEACE 15 controversy” for the purposes of § 1367(a), and we conclude that the district court did not err in exercising jurisdiction over it.