at 460-68. Although the [plaintiffs] could have commenced their maritime action in federal court, once they selected state court, that choice could not be disturbed. Because defendants ... cannot show the presence of one of the additional requirements for federal jurisdiction found in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1332 (an independent federal question or complete diversity of the parties), we conclude that removal was improper. In re Chimenti 79 F.3d at 537-38. Consequently, in the present case, removal on the basis of admiralty jurisdiction is ineffective, since the plaintiff, having filed the action originally in state court, is deemed to have elected to pursue traditional common law remedies to resolve the dispute. See Bonnette v. Shell Offshore, Inc., 838 F.Supp. 1175, 1181 (S.D.Tex.1993) (<HOLDING>). In fact, if the plaintiff intended to bring
holding that to rebut presumption plaintiff need only allege specific facts not plead evidence holding that the clause at issue granted jurisdiction but not exclusive jurisdiction holding that a civilrights plaintiff need not plead facts relevant to a qualified immunity defense in order to state a claim holding that a plaintiff need not plead the saving to suitors exception to exclusive federal jurisdiction to make his election holding a plaintiff must plead sufficient factual allegations to establish that a plausible contract exists but need not plead every detail of the contract