## Facts

- Billy G. Bailiff sued Storm Drilling Co. for personal injuries, asserting a Jones Act negligence claim and a general maritime law unseaworthiness claim.
- Bailiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and included a statement identifying the action as an admiralty or maritime claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(h).
- It was uncontested that Storm Drilling had property within the Eastern District of Texas that was subject to maritime attachment.
- Storm Drilling filed a “Stipulation to Abide Judgment,” admitting that property subject to attachment was present in the district, waiving attachment, and agreeing to abide by the judgment of the court.
- Storm Drilling moved to dismiss for improper venue, arguing that the case could be brought only in the Southern District of Texas because its agent for service of process resided there.

## Issues

1. When a Jones Act negligence claim is joined with an unseaworthiness claim and the plaintiff designates the case as an admiralty or maritime claim under Rule 9(h), is venue governed by general federal venue statutes (28 U.S.C. §§ 1391–1393) or by admiralty venue rules tied to service and attachment?
2. If the defendant has property in the district subject to maritime attachment and files a stipulation waiving attachment while agreeing to abide by the court’s judgment, is venue proper in that district despite the defendant’s objection based on the location of its agent for service?

## Decision

- The court denied Storm Drilling’s motion to dismiss for improper venue.
- Because Bailiff’s pleading properly invoked Rule 9(h), the court treated the case as governed by admiralty procedures and venue rules rather than the general civil venue statutes.
- Under traditional admiralty venue principles for in personam actions, venue was proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Storm Drilling had property in the district that could be attached.
- Storm Drilling’s stipulation to waive attachment and abide judgment did not negate the venue basis supplied by the presence of attachable property in the district.
- The court rejected Storm Drilling’s argument that venue was limited to the district where its agent for service of process resided.

## Legal Principles

- A claim designated as an admiralty or maritime claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(h) is not treated as a “civil action” for purposes of the general venue provisions in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391–1393.
- In personam admiralty actions may be brought in any district within the court’s maritime jurisdiction where the defendant can be served or where the defendant’s property or credits can be reached by maritime attachment.
- When venue is supported by the presence of attachable property, a defendant’s agreement to waive attachment and “abide judgment” may substitute for the mechanics of attachment without eliminating the venue basis that attachment would supply.
- A Jones Act plaintiff who invokes admiralty procedures under Rule 9(h) is not confined to venue rules pegged to a defendant’s registered agent; admiralty’s attachment-based venue rule may control.

## Conclusion

Bailiff’s Rule 9(h) designation placed his Jones Act and unseaworthiness suit within admiralty practice for venue purposes, so the Eastern District of Texas was a proper forum because Storm Drilling had property there subject to maritime attachment, and Storm’s stipulation to waive attachment while agreeing to abide the court’s judgment did not make venue improper.


Bailiff v. Storm Drilling Co., 356 F. Supp. 309 (1996)