## Facts

- Joao Lázaro Camejo, a Brazilian citizen and resident, worked as a diver employed in Brazil by Superpesa, a Brazilian company, performing offshore mineral-exploration work for Petrobras.
- On February 22, 1984, Camejo died in a diving accident in Brazilian territorial waters.
- The work was conducted from the ZEPHYR II, a Panamanian-flag jack-up drilling rig that had been assigned offshore Brazil since 1974 and was drilling for Petrobras under contractual arrangements.
- Camejo’s widow (also a Brazilian citizen and resident) sued in Texas state court for wrongful death and survival on behalf of herself, the estate, and their minor children, asserting claims under the Jones Act, general maritime law, and Texas law.
- Defendants included multiple U.S. and Brazilian entities; by appeal, only a subset remained, including U.S. Divers Corp. and Diving Systems International, Inc.
- The case was removed to federal court; the district court dismissed the Jones Act claim under 46 U.S.C. § 688(b), dismissed remaining maritime claims on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of Brazil, and denied remand to state court.

## Issues

1. Whether 46 U.S.C. § 688(b) barred a Jones Act claim for the death of a foreign worker employed abroad by a foreign employer, arising from offshore mineral-exploration activity in a foreign nation’s territorial waters.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the general maritime claims on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of Brazil.
3. Whether the district court erred by refusing to remand the removed case to Texas state court.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the Jones Act claim, holding § 688(b) precluded coverage on these facts.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the forum non conveniens dismissal of the general maritime claims, finding Brazil an available forum and the balance of factors favoring litigation there.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed denial of remand, concluding removal jurisdiction was proper and the district court could resolve the dispositive motions.

## Legal Principles

- Jones Act § 688(b) limits Jones Act coverage for injuries or death connected to offshore mineral-resource activities occurring in a foreign state’s territorial waters where the employment relationship is foreign-centered (including foreign residence and foreign employer).
- In forum non conveniens analysis, dismissal is appropriate when an adequate alternative forum is available and private/public interest factors strongly favor the foreign forum, particularly when key evidence and witnesses are located abroad and the foreign sovereign has the primary regulatory interest.
- Appellate review of forum non conveniens balancing is deferential; lack of plaintiff evidence contesting availability, adequacy, or factor balancing supports affirmance.
- When removal is supported by a valid federal jurisdictional basis, the federal court may retain the case and decide merits and threshold dismissal motions rather than remanding.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that § 688(b) foreclosed a Jones Act remedy for a Brazilian diver killed in Brazilian territorial waters while employed in Brazil for Brazilian offshore resource activity, and it upheld dismissal of the remaining maritime claims in favor of Brazil under forum non conveniens while also affirming the federal court’s retention of jurisdiction after removal.


Camejo v. Ocean Drilling & Expl. Co., 838 F.2d 1374 (5th Cir. 1988)