Chevron moved an offshore worker’s injury lawsuit into federal court. VB Attorneys challenged that move and obtained an order returning his Jones Act claims against Chevron and DC International to state court.
On February 9, 2026, Senior U.S. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal granted the motion to sever and remand those claims in Allen v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The ruling protected the worker’s choice of state court for his Jones Act claims. The other claims removed under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act remained in federal court under that decision. Read the court’s opinion.
For an injured maritime worker, the choice of court can become an important dispute before anyone decides who caused the injury. This case shows why a lawyer must understand both the worker’s legal rights and the rules governing where those rights will be heard.
How the offshore injury lawsuit reached federal court
Jeffrey Allen sued Chevron U.S.A., Inc. and DC International after sustaining injuries in the course of his employment on a Chevron offshore rig. He asserted claims under the Jones Act, general maritime law, and Texas common law.
Chevron removed the lawsuit from state court under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, a federal law governing certain activities on the outer continental shelf. Removal is the procedure a defendant uses to move a lawsuit from state court to federal court when the law permits it.
VB Attorneys sought to separate the Jones Act claims from the other claims and return them to state court. Separating claims is called severance. Returning them to the court where they were filed is called remand.
Chevron and DC International opposed that request.
Why Jones Act claims can stay in state court
The Jones Act gives a qualifying seaman injured in the course of employment a negligence claim against the seaman’s employer, with the right to a jury trial. If the seaman dies from the injury, the law also allows the personal representative to bring the action.
Although the Jones Act is federal law, a worker can bring a Jones Act action in state court. Properly asserted Jones Act claims filed there are generally protected from removal to federal court.
That protection has an exception. A defendant may challenge a Jones Act claim as fraudulently pleaded to prevent removal. In that setting, “fraudulently pleaded” concerns whether there is a viable legal basis for the claim. It does not itself establish that the worker lied about being injured. The defendant bears a heavy burden. Lackey v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
For a worker facing a serious maritime injury, these rules matter because choosing state court is a choice the law can protect. A company’s removal papers do not settle the question.
The distinction that decided the motion
Chevron argued that Allen’s complaint did not adequately explain why Chevron was his employer under the Jones Act, what work he performed, or how his employment connected him to a vessel in navigation. DC International made similar arguments.
Judge Rosenthal agreed that the complaint lacked enough factual detail to plausibly allege a Jones Act claim under federal pleading standards. That point did not resolve the remand motion.
The court distinguished between a complaint that does not presently state a claim with enough detail and a worker who cannot state a viable Jones Act claim.
In Allen’s case, the companies had shown the first. They had not shown the second.
The opinion explains that neither company argued Allen could not plead a Jones Act claim against it. Neither supplied discrete evidence eliminating the possibility of a viable claim. The court concluded that the defendants had not met their burden and granted severance and remand.
The ruling also addressed the practical consequence of the companies’ position. If an injured worker had to satisfy federal pleading standards before filing in state court, removal could force the worker to rewrite the complaint in federal court simply to return to the original court. Or it could leave the claim in federal court despite the worker’s protected choice.
What the ruling established
VB Attorneys obtained a ruling protecting Allen’s state-court forum for his Jones Act claims against both defendants.
The decision concerned where those claims belonged. It did not determine that Allen qualified as a seaman, that either defendant was his Jones Act employer, or that either company caused his injuries. It awarded no damages.
The ruling also separated the Jones Act claims from the claims removed under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. It did not return the entire lawsuit to state court.
Those distinctions matter. Protecting a client’s choice of court is one part of handling the case. Establishing the employment relationship, proving the claim, and determining damages involve separate questions.
Why this matters after a serious maritime injury
An offshore worker’s case may involve several companies, disputed employment relationships, and questions about the worker’s connection to a vessel. Identifying the company on a paycheck does not answer every legal question.
The Allen opinion mentions the borrowed-servant doctrine, which can become relevant when a worker employed by one company works under another company’s direction. The court did not decide whether Chevron was Allen’s employer under that doctrine. It decided that the defendants’ arguments did not justify keeping his Jones Act claims in federal court.
For an injured worker, these employment questions affect which claims can be brought and against whom. A lawyer handling a serious maritime injury case must examine them alongside disputes over where those claims belong.
A serious maritime case requires attention to the worker’s duties, the vessel connection, the potential employers, and the available evidence. It also requires a plan for disputes over the court that will hear the claims. The Allen ruling provides a documented example of VB Attorneys addressing that part of a client’s case.
Our Jones Act claims page explains the law’s protections in more detail. Our page on offshore oil rig and vessel injuries addresses the different circumstances that can shape an offshore injury claim.
Another Jones Act case against Chevron
In a separate case, a seaman fell on worn stairs aboard Chevron’s Florida Voyager and injured her neck and shoulder. Chevron’s own vessel work list identified those stairs as needing repair. After the fall, she was kept aboard and assigned painting work while wearing a sling. Brian Beckcom led her case to a Confidential Settlement before trial in Harris County. Read the Chevron tanker case.
That case ended in a Settlement. Allen’s February 9 ruling addressed where his Jones Act claims would be heard and awarded no damages.
Questions about Jones Act removal
Can a company move a Jones Act claim to federal court?
Generally, a properly asserted Jones Act claim filed in state court is nonremovable. A defendant may challenge a claim as fraudulently pleaded, but it bears a heavy burden. In Allen, the court held that deficiencies in the existing complaint alone did not justify keeping these Jones Act claims in federal court.
Does every offshore rig worker qualify under the Jones Act?
No. Working offshore does not automatically make someone a Jones Act seaman. Courts examine the worker’s duties and whether the connection to a vessel, or an identifiable group of vessels, is substantial in both duration and nature. The Allen remand ruling did not decide that issue for Allen. Sanchez v. Smart Fabricators of Texas, LLC.
Did the court find Chevron or DC International responsible for Allen’s injuries?
No. The court granted severance and remand of the Jones Act claims. It did not decide negligence, causation, damages, or which company was Allen’s Jones Act employer.
Can different claims from the same offshore injury proceed in different courts?
Yes, depending on the claims and the grounds for federal jurisdiction. In Allen, the court granted remand of the Jones Act claims while leaving the claims removed under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act in federal court under its February 9 decision.
Talk with VB Attorneys about a serious maritime injury
VB Attorneys represents people with catastrophic maritime injuries and families pursuing maritime wrongful death claims. When we review an offshore or vessel injury, the worker’s employment and the laws governing the claim deserve attention alongside the circumstances of the injury.
If you or a family member suffered a disabling maritime injury, or a loved one died in an offshore or vessel accident, the first conversation is free. Tell us what happened, and we will give you a straight answer about whether we can help.
Tell us what happened. Call (877) 724-7800.
Source: Allen v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Civil Action No. H-25-4831, Document 14, Memorandum Opinion and Order, February 9, 2026, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.