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).

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?

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?