## Facts

- The Chimenti family, Michigan citizens, booked a Mexico vacation through Apple Vacations, Inc. (non-Michigan) and Kimberly Travel, Inc. (Michigan).
- During the trip, Dale Chimenti rented jet skis at a hotel and was allegedly stranded at sea for about 51 hours after a malfunction; rescue followed.
- The jet-ski operation was allegedly run by an independent Mexican company.
- The Chimentis first filed a federal diversity action against Apple Vacations, then dismissed without prejudice to join Kimberly Travel and proceed in Michigan state court.
- In state court, they asserted claims under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, alleging misleading promotional representations about the hotel and available water sports.
- The complaint invoked general maritime law through the “saving to suitors” clause, 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1), while pursuing state-law remedies in an in personam action.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting admiralty/maritime jurisdiction as the removal basis.
- The district court denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand; plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus from the Sixth Circuit to compel remand.

## Issues

1. Whether an in personam maritime action filed in state court under the saving-to-suitors clause, seeking state-law remedies and lacking an independent federal jurisdictional basis (such as diversity), is removable solely on admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1).
2. Whether mandamus is an appropriate remedy to correct a district court’s refusal to remand such an action.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit granted the petition for a writ of mandamus.
- The court held that the action was not removable on admiralty jurisdiction alone when plaintiffs elected a state forum and state-law remedies under the saving-to-suitors clause and no independent federal basis for removal existed.
- The court directed the district court to remand the case to Michigan state court.

## Legal Principles

- The saving-to-suitors clause preserves a plaintiff’s ability to bring in personam maritime claims in state court and to pursue non-admiralty remedies otherwise available.
- Federal admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) provides original jurisdiction but, standing alone, does not supply removal jurisdiction for saving-to-suitors cases filed in state court.
- Removal of a state-filed maritime action generally requires an independent statutory ground for federal jurisdiction (e.g., complete diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332); without it, removal is improper.
- Mandamus may issue where a district court clearly exceeds its jurisdiction by retaining a non-removable saving-to-suitors action, thereby depriving the plaintiff of the forum choice preserved by § 1333(1) and leaving no adequate immediate remedy by appeal.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit required remand because plaintiffs’ saving-to-suitors, in personam maritime action—pleaded for state-law remedies and lacking an independent basis for federal jurisdiction—could not be removed solely on admiralty jurisdiction, and mandamus was warranted to correct the district court’s jurisdictional error.


In re Chimenti, 79 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 1996)