(Compl. 1, 3). The complaint alleges that the injuries were sustained on or about May 16th, 2000, all of which, occurred at the same time and place. (Compl. 3). Consequently, the plaintiffs’ claims under the Jones Act and general maritime law are not separate and independent; therefore the case is unremovable. CONCLUSION For the aforementioned reasons, the Court GRANTS the plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand the above-styled case to the Circuit Court of Mason County, West Virginia. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties and to publish this Order on the District’s website. 1 . Unseaworthiness is a claim under general maritime law based on the vessel owner’s duty to ensure that the vessel is fit to Supp. 963 (W.D.La.1985)(<HOLDING>); See also Iwag v. Geisel Compania Maritima,
holding that joinder of a nonremovable jones act claim with a removable claim under general maritime law that is not separate and independent is not grounds for removal holding that general maritime and unseaworthiness claims brought in state court are removable to federal court only if they constitute separate and independent claims or causes of action in relation to the nonremovable jones act claim holding that jones act claims can be brought either in admiralty or at law holding that even though  24 only refers to actions in state court it applies to state claims brought in federal court holding that although claims asserted under the general maritime law of unseaworthiness are removable when diversity exists they cannot be removed when combined with a claim under the jones act