Is a contract to provide services to oil wells located on fixed platforms in navigable waters within a State a maritime' contract when a vessel played a substantial role in the performance of the contract?

QUESTION PRESENTED The federal courts have admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) over a contract dispute if the contract at issue is “maritime.” In Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. James N. Kirby, Pty Ltd., 543 U.S. 14 (2004), this Court explained that the maritime status of a contract “‘depends upon ... the nature and character of the contract,’ and the true criterion is whether it has ‘reference to maritime service or maritime transactions.’” Id. at 24 (quoting North Pacific S.S. Co. v. Hall Brothers Marine Railway & Shipbuilding Co., 249 U.S. 119, 125 (1919)). The focus is “on whether the principal objective of a contract is maritime commerce.” Id. at 25. The courts of appeals are divided on the proper application of the Kirby test for admiralty contract jurisdiction. The Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits consider whether the subject matter of the contract is inherently maritime and explicitly reject dispositive reliance on the involvement of a vessel. The Fifth Circuit recognizes that contracts “to provide services to facilitate the drilling or production of oil and gas on navigable waters” are not “inherently maritime,” but holds that such a contract is maritime if “a vessel will play a substantial role in the completion of the contract.” In re Larry Doiron, Inc., 879 F.3d 568, 573, 576 (5th Cir. 2018) (en banc). The question presented is: Is a contract to provide services to oil wells located on fixed platforms in navigable waters within a State a “maritime” contract when a vessel played a substantial role in the performance of the contract?