The Estate of R. Shane Adams et al v. Zenith Energy Terminals Holdings, LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
THE ESTATE OF R. SHANE ADAMS et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-CV-52
(KLEEH)
ZENITH ENERGY TERMINALS HOLDINGS, LLC et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMSS MARITIME
CLAIMS [ECF NO. 63]
Pending 	before 	the 	Court 	is 	Defendants 	Zenith 	Energy
Terminals Holdings, LLC and Zenith Energy Logistics, LLC’s Motion
to 	Dismiss 	Plaintiffs’ 	Maritime 	Claims 	and 	Request 	for 	Expedited
Relief 	[ECF 	No. 	63], 	which 	seeks 	to 	dismiss 	any 	maritime 	claims
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs the Estate of
R. Shane Adams, Jeremy Pope, G.T.P. and A.M.P. by next of friend,
Jeremy 	Pope 	(“Plaintiffs”) 	oppose 	the 	motion 	to 	dismiss, 	arguing
this 	Court 	has 	original 	jurisdiction 	over 	cases 	involving
admiralty or maritime law. ECF No. 72. For reasons stated herein,
the Motion [ECF No. 63] is GRANTED.
I. 	RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On 	May 	10, 	2024, 	Plaintiffs 	the 	Estate 	of 	R. 	Shane 	Adams,
Jeremy 	Pope, 	G.T.P. 	and 	A.M.P. 	by 	next 	of 	friend, 	Jeremy 	Pope
(“Plaintiffs”) 	filed 	suit 	against 	several 	entities 	alleging
multiple 	claims 	relating 	to 	Mr. 	Adams 	death 	on 	May 	13, 	2022.
Case 1:24-cv-00052-TSK Document 154 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Compl., 	ECF 	No. 	1. 	Defendants 	Zenith 	Energy 	Terminals 	Holdings,
LLC, and Zenith Energy Logistics, LLC filed their Answer on August
28, 2024. The parties stipulated to the dismissal of several other
Zenith entity defendants. ECF Nos. 26, 27. Thereafter, Plaintiffs
moved pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
to 	drop 	“John 	Doe 	Tugboat 	Owner” 	and 	“John 	Doe 	Tugboat 	Operators
1-10” 	as 	parties. 	ECF 	No. 	114. 	The 	Court 	granted 	the 	Rule 	21
Motion. 	ECF 	No. 	114. 	Accordingly, 	the 	only 	remaining 	Defendants
are 	Zenith 	Energy 	Terminals 	Holdings, 	LLC, 	and 	Zenith 	Energy
Logistics, LLC (“Zenith Defendants”).
On June 13, 2025, the Zenith Defendants moved to amend their
Answer 	to 	assert 	an 	additional 	affirmative 	defense 	under 	1985’s
Rails to Trails Program, W. Va. Code § 5B-1A-1, et seq. (the “Rail
Trail 	Act”). 	ECF 	No. 	55. 	The 	Court 	granted 	the 	Zenith 	Defendants
leave 	to 	amend 	their 	Answer. 	ECF 	No. 	152. 1 	However, 	in 	their
response in opposition to the motion to amend, Plaintiffs claimed
for 	the 	first 	time 	that 	their 	claims 	fall 	under 	this 	Court’s
maritime 	jurisdiction. 	ECF 	No. 	56. 	Accordingly, 	on 	July 	7, 	2025,
the 	Zenith 	Defendants 	filed 	the 	subject 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	any
maritime 	law 	claims. 	ECF 	No. 	63. 	Plaintiffs 	filed 	Plaintiffs’
Response 	in 	Opposition 	to 	Defendants 	Zenith 	Energy 	Terminals
Holdings, LLC and Zenith Energy Logistics, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss
1 The Amended Answer is docketed at ECF No. 153.
Case 1:24-cv-00052-TSK Document 154 Filed 12/12/25 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Plaintiffs’ Maritime Claims and Request for Expedited Relief [ECF
No. 72] on July 21, 2025. The Zenith Defendants filed their reply
brief on July 28, 2025. ECF No. 79. The Court heard oral arguments
on November 3, 2025. Accordingly, this Motion is fully briefed and
ripe for review.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Federal 	courts 	possess 	jurisdiction 	over 	“admiralty 	and
maritime” cases. U.S. Const. art. III § 2; 28 U.S.C. § 1333. “The
primary 	justification 	for 	entrusting 	admiralty 	cases 	to 	the
federal 	courts 	is 	to 	protect 	‘the 	important 	national 	interest 	in
uniformity 	of 	law 	and 	remedies 	for 	those 	facing 	the 	hazards 	of
waterborne 	transportation.’” 	Baltimore 	Gas 	& 	Elec. 	Co. 	v.
Coastline 	Com. 	Contracting, 	Inc., 	107 	F.4th 	264, 	268 	(4th 	Cir.
2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 985 (2024) (citing Aqua Log, Inc.
v. 	Lost 	& 	Abandoned 	Pre-Cut 	Logs 	& 	Rafts 	of 	Logs, 	709 	F.3d 	1055,
1061 	(11th 	Cir. 	2013); 	Exec. 	Jet 	Aviation, 	Inc. 	v. 	City 	of
Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249, 269–70 (1972)).
To invoke federal admiralty jurisdiction, the claim must meet
conditions of location and a connection to maritime activity. Id.
“The 	alleged 	wrong 	must 	occur 	or 	be 	located 	over 	a 	navigable
waterway, 	and 	the 	wrong 	must 	bear 	a 	significant 	relationship 	to
traditional 	maritime 	activity.” 	Mullenix 	v. 	United 	States, 	984
F.2d 	101, 	104 	(4th 	Cir. 	1993). 	“The 	connection 	test 	has 	two
requirements: (1) the incident must have a potentially disruptive
Case 1:24-cv-00052-TSK Document 154 Filed 12/12/25 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
impact 	on 	maritime 	commerce 	and 	(2) 	the 	activity 	giving 	rise 	to
the 	incident 	must 	bear 	a 	substantial 	relationship 	to 	traditional
maritime activity.” Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co., 107 F.4th at 270.
Importantly, the application of maritime law does not turn on
the “actual effects on maritime commerce” or “the particular facts”
of 	the 	alleged 	tort. 	Sisson 	v. 	Ruby, 	497 	U.S. 	358, 	363 	(1990).
Rather, 	the 	Court 	must 	look 	at 	the 	incident’s 	“general 	features”
and 	assess 	whether 	it 	falls 	“within 	a 	class 	of 	incidents 	that
pose[ ] more than a fanciful risk to commercial shipping.” Jerome
B. 	Grubart, 	Inc. 	v. 	Great 	Lakes 	Dredge 	& 	Dock 	Co., 	513 	U.S. 	527,
538–39 (1995). For example, the Supreme Court of the United States
previously 	held 	that 	a 	“a 	fire 	on 	a 	vessel 	docked 	at 	a 	marina 	on
navigable 	waters” 	could 	have 	a 	“potentially 	disruptive 	impact 	on
maritime 	commerce” 	because 	the 	fire 	could 	have 	“spread 	to 	nearby
commercial 	vessels 	or 	ma[d]e 	the 	marina 	inaccessible 	to 	such
vessels.” 	Sisson, 	497 	U.S. 	at 	362–63. 	This 	was 	the 	case, 	even
though 	there 	were 	no 	commercial 	vessels 	at 	the 	marina 	during 	the
fire. 	Accordingly, 	the 	Court 	must 	use 	an 	intermediate 	level 	of
generality 	when 	describing 	the 	subject 	incident. 	Id. 	at 	363;
Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co., 107 F.4th at 270-71.
A. Invocation of Maritime Law
However, 	prior 	to 	determining 	whether 	a 	case 	falls 	under
federal 	admiral 	jurisdiction, 	jurisdiction 	must 	be 	invoked. 	Rule
9(h) of the Federal Rules of Procedure provides:
Case 1:24-cv-00052-TSK Document 154 Filed 12/12/25 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
If a claim for relief is within the admiralty
or 	maritime 	jurisdiction 	and 	also 	within 	the
court's 	subject-matter 	jurisdiction 	on 	some
other 	ground, 	the 	pleading 	may 	designate 	the
claim as an admiralty or maritime claim.
Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	9(h). 	Accordingly, 	“invoking 	the 	admiralty
jurisdiction 	requires 	an 	identification 	of 	the 	claim 	as 	one 	in
admiralty 	in 	accordance 	with 	Rule 	9(h).” 	Lewis 	v. 	United 	States,
812 	F. 	Supp. 	620, 	628–29 	(E.D. 	Va. 	1992); 	Banks 	v. 	Hanover 	S. 	S.
Corp., 	43 	F.R.D. 	374, 	376–77 	(D. 	Md. 	1967) 	(noting 	“A 	statement
identifying 	the 	pleading 	as 	an 	admiralty 	and 	maritime 	claim 	is
necessary.”). 	“If 	the 	claim 	may 	be 	asserted 	as 	civil 	(diversity)
or as admiralty, plaintiff must choose and designate as Rule 9(h)
if 	choice 	is 	admiralty.” 	7 	West's 	Fed. 	Forms, 	Admiralty 	§ 	10659
(5th ed.). “The complaint does not have to explicitly cite to Rule
9(h), 	but 	it 	must 	at 	least 	include 	‘a 	simple 	statement’ 	invoking
admiralty 	jurisdiction.” 	Poincon 	v. 	Offshore 	Marine 	Contractors,
Inc., 	9 	F.4th 	289, 	294 	(5th 	Cir. 	2021) 	(internal 	citations
omitted).
This designation is important because there are consequential
differences between handling a case in admiralty or at law. Lewis,
812 F.Supp. at 627; Brown v. Cox, 2012 WL 243233, at *2 (E.D. Va.
Jan. 24, 2012). Most notably, if proceeding under a federal court’s
admiralty 	jurisdiction, 	the 	plaintiff 	is 	not 	entitled 	to 	a 	jury
trial. Lewis, 812 F.Supp. at 627; Coley v. Dragon, Ltd., 138 F.R.D.
460, 	464 	(E.D. 	Va. 	1990). 	As 	such, 	“where 	jurisdiction 	over 	a
Case 1:24-cv-00052-TSK Document 154 Filed 12/12/25 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
plaintiff's claims lies under both diversity and admiralty and the
plaintiff 	invokes 	maritime 	jurisdiction 	in 	his 	Complaint, 	that
plaintiff cannot demand a jury.” Gaines v. Ampro Fisheries, Inc.,
836 F. Supp. 347, 348 (E.D. Va. 1993).
“The 	Supreme 	Court 	has 	explained 	that 	the 	saving-to-suitors
clause 	preserves 	a 	plaintiff's 	right 	to 	a 	common 	law 	remedy 	‘in
all 	cases 	where 	the 	common 	law 	is 	competent 	to 	give 	it.’” 	Brown,
2012 	WL 	243233, 	at 	*2 	(citing 	In 	re 	Lockheed 	Martin 	Corp., 	503
F.3d 	351, 	354 	(4th 	Cir. 	2007). 	“The 	common 	law 	is 	competent 	to
provide 	a 	remedy 	in 	a 	general 	maritime 	negligence 	claim 	asserted
against 	in 	personam 	defendants.” 	Id.; 	Coley, 	138 	F.R.D. 	at 	464
(“Since the common law is competent in all cases where the suit is
in personam, a plaintiff in such cases may elect either to proceed
in 	admiralty 	or 	to 	bring 	an 	ordinary 	civil 	action. 	. 	.in 	federal
court 	if 	diversity 	or 	some 	other 	form 	of 	federal 	jurisdiction 	is
available.”).
Requiring 	a 	plaintiff 	desiring 	to 	proceed 	in 	admiralty 	to
plead under Rule 9(h) in their complaint, ensures a plaintiff does
not “inadvertently forfeit a right to a jury trial which they had
otherwise 	intended 	to 	preserve.” 	Chisholm 	v. 	UHP 	Projects, 	Inc.,
30 	F. 	Supp. 	2d 	928, 	932–33 	(E.D. 	Va. 	1998), 	aff'd, 	205 	F.3d 	731
(4th Cir. 2000). Thus, a plaintiff seeking to preserve his common
law right to a trial by jury could elect to proceed at law, assuming
an 	independent 	basis 	for 	jurisdiction 	exists. 	Brown, 	2012 	WL
Case 1:24-cv-00052-TSK Document 154 Filed 12/12/25 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
243233, 	at 	*3 	(finding 	plaintiff 	alleged 	a 	negligence 	claim 	at
law, 	rather 	than 	a 	claim 	in 	admiralty 	because 	he 	sought
compensatory 	damages, 	demanded 	a 	jury, 	and 	did 	not 	invoke
procedural 	rules, 	procedures, 	or 	remedies 	unique 	to 	maritime 	law
in 	his 	complaint). 	“[O]nce 	a 	plaintiff 	has 	demanded 	a 	jury, 	and
therefore has not designated his claim as an admiralty claim under
9(h), he cannot subsequently withdraw the jury demand and designate
his 	claim 	as 	one 	in 	admiralty, 	without 	abiding 	by 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ.
P. 39(a)2 .” Matter of Armatur, S.A., 710 F. Supp. 404, 406 (D.P.R.
1989). See Gorton v. Eaton Corp., 2022 WL 7529065, at *9 (M.D. Pa.
Oct. 13, 2022) (finding plaintiff did not invoke court’s admiralty
jurisdiction 	in 	her 	complaints 	and 	that 	maritime 	law 	did 	not
apply).
III. DISCUSSION
In 	this 	case, 	the 	parties’ 	briefings 	focus 	on 	whether 	the
case, factually, falls within this Court’s admiralty jurisdiction.
However, 	the 	actual 	predicate 	issue 	before 	the 	Court 	is 	whether
Plaintiffs intended when filing suit to proceed under this Court’s
admiralty 	jurisdiction 	or 	under 	federal 	diversity 	subject 	matter
jurisdiction. 	Looking 	at 	the 	record 	before 	the 	Court, 	Plaintiffs
2 Rule 39(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides “[w]hen
a 	jury 	trial 	has 	been 	demanded 	under 	Rule 	38, 	the 	action 	must 	be
designated on the docket as a jury action. The trial on all issues so
demanded must be by jury unless:(1) the parties or their attorneys file
a stipulation to a nonjury trial or so stipulate on the record.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 39.
Case 1:24-cv-00052-TSK Document 154 Filed 12/12/25 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
elected to prosecute their claims under common law via this Court’s
federal diversity jurisdiction.
First, Plaintiffs pleaded in their Complaint that this Court
had 	diversity 	jurisdiction 	pursuant 	to 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1332. 	ECF 	No.
1, 	Compl. 	at 	¶ 	26. 	Plaintiffs 	brought 	claims 	under 	West 	Virginia
statutory and common law. ECF No. 1, Compl. Plaintiffs demanded a
trial 	by 	jury. 	Id. 	at 	p. 	22. 	Further, 	Plaintiffs 	designated 	the
nature 	of 	the 	suit 	as 	personal 	injury 	with 	the 	basis 	of
jurisdiction 	as 	diversity 	on 	the 	civil 	cover 	sheet. 	ECF 	No. 	1-1.
The Complaint makes no reference to maritime or admiralty law. The
application 	of 	maritime 	or 	admiralty 	law 	was 	first 	brought 	up 	in
Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Amend
their 	Answer 	— 	a 	year 	after 	filing 	their 	Complaint. 	ECF 	No. 	56.
Plaintiffs’ 	effort 	to 	retroactively 	proceed 	at 	admiralty 	in 	this
case 	is 	a 	clear 	attempt 	to 	sidestep 	immunities 	available 	to 	the
Zenith 	Defendants 	at 	common 	law, 	which 	Defendants 	assert 	are
dispositive of this case.
However, 	Plaintiffs 	did 	not 	invoke 	this 	Court’s 	admiralty
jurisdiction. There is no mention for Rule 9(h) or the invocation
of 	admiralty 	law 	in 	the 	Complaint. 	Beyond 	this, 	Plaintiffs 	have
consistently spoke about proceeding to a jury trial, including at
the motions hearing where counsel simultaneously argued admiralty
law applied. Furthermore, Plaintiffs filed proposed voir dire and
jury 	instructions 	and 	included 	issues 	for 	the 	jury 	to 	decide 	in
Case 1:24-cv-00052-TSK Document 154 Filed 12/12/25 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
the 	proposed 	pretrial 	order. 	ECF 	Nos. 	115-17. 	There 	is 	no
indication 	in 	this 	case 	that 	the 	Plaintiffs 	intended 	to 	forfeit
their 	right 	to 	a 	jury 	trial. 	Rather, 	the 	late 	invocation 	of
admiralty law appears to be a strategic legal decision, which was
not fully thought out.
Here, 	this 	Court 	has 	subject 	matter 	jurisdiction 	to 	preside
over 	this 	case 	because 	the 	parties 	are 	diverse 	and 	the 	amount 	in
controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum, as required by 28
U.S.C. § 1332. The Court need not decide whether Plaintiffs’ claims
are admiralty and maritime claims, because even assuming they would
fall 	under 	this 	Cour’s 	admiralty 	jurisdiction, 	the 	"saving 	to
suitors" 	clause, 	found 	in 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1333, 	reserves 	to 	suitors
the right of a common law remedy in courts “in all cases where the
common law is competent to give it.” In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,
503 F.3d at 354. As is the case here, Plaintiffs elected to proceed
under 	this 	Court’s 	federal 	diversity 	jurisdiction 	and 	demanded 	a
jury 	trial. 	The 	Court 	does 	not 	find 	that 	Plaintiffs 	elected 	to
proceed 	with 	the 	trial 	of 	the 	Complaint 	in 	admiralty 	and,
therefore, maritime law does not apply to this case.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	stated 	herein, 	Defendants 	Zenith 	Energy
Terminals Holdings, LLC and Zenith Energy Logistics, LLC’s Motion
to 	Dismiss 	Plaintiffs’ 	Maritime 	Claims 	and 	Request 	for 	Expedited
Relief [ECF No. 63] is GRANTED. Defendants Zenith Energy Terminals
Case 1:24-cv-00052-TSK Document 154 Filed 12/12/25 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
Holdings, LLC and Zenith Energy Logistics, LLC’s Motion for Summary
Judgment 	on 	Plaintiffs’ 	Maritime 	Claims 	[ECF 	No. 	75] 	is 	DENIED 	AS
MOOT.
It is so ORDERED.
The 	Clerk 	is 	directed 	to 	transmit 	copies 	of 	this 	Order 	to
counsel of record.
DATED: December 12, 2025
____________________________
THOMAS S. KLEEH, CHIEF JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Case 1:24-cv-00052-TSK Document 154 Filed 12/12/25 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>