Federal Court Sends Allision Case Back to Louisiana State Court: Citing a Federal Regulation Doesn't Make Your Case a Federal One

WHAT HAPPENED

Curt Felix Dufrene, Jr. was navigating his fishing vessel on a waterway in Plaquemines Parish when his boat struck an unmarked, unlit wellhead or platform owned and operated by Pinnacle Energy, LLC. He sustained serious bodily injuries and suffered damage to his vessel and fishing business.

In February 2026, Dufrene filed suit in the 25th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Plaquemines, asserting negligence claims under both Louisiana state law and general maritime law. He alleged that Pinnacle Energy failed to properly mark and light the structure in violation of Title 33 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations — the federal navigational aid and obstruction-marking rules — and invoked the admiralty jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1333, alongside the savings to suitors clause.

Pinnacle Energy removed the case to federal court in March 2026, arguing that Dufrene's reference to federal regulatory violations gave the district court federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Dufrene moved to remand.

THE COURT'S ANALYSIS

The court began with the foundational principle that maritime cases filed in state court under the savings to suitors clause are not removable to federal court on the basis of admiralty jurisdiction alone. An independent basis for federal jurisdiction — typically diversity or federal question — is required to sustain removal.

The court applied the two-part federal question test: (1) does federal law create the cause of action, or (2) does the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depend on resolving a substantial question of federal law?

On the first prong, the court held that neither Louisiana negligence law nor general maritime law arises under the Constitution or federal statutes for removal purposes. The court rejected Pinnacle Energy's argument that the citation to Title 33 federal regulations transformed the claim into a federal one, noting that "federal regulations themselves cannot create a cause of action; this is a job for the legislature."

On the second prong, the court applied the Grable four-part test — asking whether a federal issue is (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution without upsetting the federal-state balance.

The court drew a critical distinction between two lines of cases:

In cases like Rivera v. Orion Marine Group and Ibarra Consulting Engineers v. Jacobs Engineering, defendants' compliance with federal regulations was an essential element of the plaintiff's claim — meaning recovery was impossible without proving a federal regulatory violation. In those cases, a federal issue was properly raised.

In this case, however, the Title 33 regulation was cited only as evidence of the appropriate standard of care in an ordinary negligence claim. As the court put it: "Defendant may be found to be negligent even if it adhered to the lighting and marking standards for waterways under Title 33." The federal regulation was not an essential element of Dufrene's claim — it was simply evidence of the duty owed.

The court also found that any Title 33 analysis would be highly fact-intensive and case-specific, presenting no serious unresolved question of federal law. Finally, it held that exercising jurisdiction would disturb the traditional allocation of tort claims to state courts — warning that if every negligence case citing a federal regulation were removable, the result would be a massive, Congress-unapproved migration of state tort cases into federal dockets.

WHY THIS CASE MATTERS FOR MARITIME INJURY PLAINTIFFS

This decision is a valuable reminder that the savings to suitors clause is a plaintiff's shield — and that defendants cannot strip a maritime plaintiff of their chosen forum simply by pointing to a federal regulation mentioned in the petition.

The practical distinction drawn by the court is important: if a plaintiff's recovery depends entirely on proving a federal regulatory violation (as in a strict liability claim structured around federal standards), a federal issue may be "necessarily raised." But where the federal regulation serves only as evidence of the applicable duty of care in a traditional negligence framework — and where negligence could be established on other grounds — no federal issue is raised at all.

For plaintiffs in the Gulf South who are injured by poorly marked or unlit wellheads, platforms, and other obstructions to navigation, this ruling confirms that they can pursue their claims in their local parish courthouse rather than in federal court, where the absence of a jury trial right in admiralty can disadvantage injured maritime workers and recreational boaters alike.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Maritime cases filed in state court under the savings to suitors clause require an independent basis — diversity or federal question — for removal to federal court. Admiralty jurisdiction alone is not enough.

• Citing a federal regulation in a negligence petition does not automatically create federal question jurisdiction. Federal regulations cannot create causes of action on their own.

• The Grable four-part test controls when defendants argue removal based on an embedded federal issue. The federal question must be necessarily raised, disputed, substantial, and consistent with the federal-state balance.

• The key distinction: if a federal regulation is an essential element of recovery (e.g., strict liability tied exclusively to regulatory compliance), a federal issue may be raised. If the regulation merely establishes the standard of care in an ordinary negligence claim, it does not.

• Tort law — including maritime negligence — is traditionally the domain of state courts, and federal courts will guard that domain against jurisdictional overreach.

CITATION:

• Dufrene v. Pinnacle Energy, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-00645-SM-EJD (E.D. La. May 21, 2026) (Morgan, J.).

Please feel free to reach out at ad@adamdavislawfirm.com or (504) 553-1435 if you have any questions.

Adam Davis Law Firm