The defendant removed the suit to Federal Court and sought to have the arbitration provision enforced.
- So what about Colorado??
- 2003 1500hd vin number locations.
- P.O. Box 270670, Hartford, WI 53027?
- Maritime Dictionary!
- trace the ip address of an email.
- death certificate cook co il 1928.
The District Court concluded that the parties must resolve the dispute by arbitration. The original order was silent as to whether the lawsuit was dismissed or stayed pending arbitration. However, when the parties could not agree on the selection of the arbitrators, the parties moved to re-open the request for arbitration to have the District Judge intervene in the selection of an arbitrator under 9 U. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the District Judge had never entered a final judgment or dismissed the lawsuit, so there was no appellate jurisdiction.
Bordelon Marine, LLC v. April This case was not selected for publication by the Court in West's Federal Reporter. In a Jones Act Case, Dismissal Sanction for not attending IME Reversed A case filed by Jones Act seaman was dismissed based on repeated failures of the seaman to attend three separately scheduled independent medical examinations, including last one pursuant to a court order obtained by the vessel owner and employer. The seaman also had failed to timely respond to other discovery requests without motions to compel being filed.
The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the case for the district court to strike the expert and proceed accordingly. Dominguez v.
Crosby Tugs LLC. The Coast Guard regulations over MODUs included design and equipment standards as to accommodation spaces as well as design requirements with respect to wash spaces, toilet spaces and shower spaces, such that the Coast Guard exercised its authority over such MODUs, according to the Fifth Circuit panel.
Thomas v.
Case Summaries (April 2017-April 2018)
The Gulf is not a premises controlled or occupied by the charterer. Knox v. The McBride Conclusion For those who may have been following the Fifth Circuit McBride punitive damage case that resulted in the en banc decision holding that punitive damages are not available to seamen under the Jones Act or general maritime law, here is the rest of the story. The case involved a truck-mounted drilling rig located on a barge that toppled over and crushed a seaman to death.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the award. McBride v. Estis Well Services,L. The mortgagor filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Admiralty law, arguing that the underlying mortgage was invalid under the law of the state in which it was executed, and therefore could not be a preferred ship mortgage under the Ship Mortgage Act 46 U.
Maritime and Boating Accidents in Colorado
The District Court found no additional requirement in the Ship Mortgage Act for the mortgage also be valid under state law. South Lafourche Bank and Trust v. La June 19, Appeal filed on July 21, Submitted by Douglas W. Truxillo , Onebane Law Firm. Interlocutory Appeal Asserted Pursuant to 28 U. As a result, the case proceeded with a jury trial, which resulted in a defense verdict. Plaintiff moved for a new trial under Civil Rule 59 a or judgment notwithstanding the verdict under Civil Rule 50 b , which the Court granted. Defendant appealed the order granting a new trial pursuant to 28 U.
Because the ordinary rules of civil procedure do not permit appeal until there is a final appealable order 28 U. Buccina v. Grimsby , U. Submitted by Eric S. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that it was not clearly erroneous for the District Court to hold that no violation of the Inland Navigation rules had occurred, meaning that the Pennsylvania Rule was not applicable. Alexander v. Ingram Barge Co. The Court declined to extend its earlier holding in Glynn v. Sounding Co. Townsend , U. Hill v. Turnover for Longshoring Operations Requires an Inspection The Ninth Circuit held that the duty vessel owners have toward longshoremen to turn their vessels over in a safe condition includes a duty to reasonably inspect the vessel for hazards.
The Krist Law Firm, P.C.
A longshoreman received an electrical shock from a floodlight supplied by the vessel. The Court examined U. Supreme Court case law regarding the turnover duty, found the duty clearly encompassed the duty to inspect, and affirmed both the jury instruction and the judgment in favor of the longshoreman. Murray v. Route Mar. SA , F. The case also includes a lengthy discussion of the application of reliability and admissibility of expert witness evidence.
Just Like Contribution Claims, Indemnity Claims Against Settling Co-defendants Are Barred in Admiralty Cases After a defendant impleaded a co-defendant on claims of contribution and indemnity, the plaintiff settled with each of the defendants separately.
- INTERACTIVE SHIPPING GLOSSARY!
- VA Maritime & Admiralty Resources by Lawyer Bryan Peeples;
- New Jersey: Admiralty & Maritime Lawyers!
The co-defendant moved for summary judgment on the contribution and indemnity claims, which the district court granted. AmClyde , U. Contractual and implied contractual indemnity were not at issue. Corvus Energy Ltd. The defendant filed a motion to strike the request for punitive damages. On an interlocutory appeal from that denial, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the continued validity of its holding in Evich v. Morris , F.
Acronyms - International Dictionary of Marine Aids to Navigation
Estis Well Service , F. Apex Marine Corp. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit held punitive damages are not barred by Miles. Furthermore, the court noted that its reasoning was consistent with both Atlantic Sounding Co. Dutra Grp. Batterton and McBride present a split between the circuits regarding the availability of punitive damages on unseaworthiness claims that sets the issue up for determination by the Supreme Court. On June 7, , the Court granted the defendant an extension to file a petition for a writ of certiorari on or before August 31, Batterton , no.
District Courts Retain in rem Jurisdiction over Vessels Even in Bankruptcy and Pre-Trial Motions for Maintenance Are Subject to the Summary Judgment Standard After plaintiff seafarer was severely injured, he filed claims for maintenance and cure against a vessel in rem and against the company that owned the vessel and the individual who owned that company in personam. However, plaintiff never arrested the vessel. When plaintiff later amended his complaint to add a claim, he failed to verify it as required by Rule C of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims.
The district court determined that the amended, unverified complaint superseded the original one, depriving the court of in rem jurisdiction over the vessel. The court therefore dismissed the vessel as a defendant. Plaintiff appealed. The Ninth Circuit found that the district court had in rem jurisdiction all along and that its jurisdiction was exclusive of the bankruptcy court.
Navigation menu
Since the bankruptcy court lacked such jurisdiction, the lien was not discharged, and the dismissal of the vessel was reversed. The Ninth Circuit also addressed the issue of the proper treatment of pre-trial motions for maintenance. Five years into the case, although plaintiff had filed multiple motions for summary judgment regarding maintenance and cure and although the district court had long-since determined plaintiff was entitled to maintenance, it had not ordered defendants to pay.
The district court reasoned that plaintiff had failed to present evidence that his actual living expenses were reasonable in his locality. The Ninth Circuit found that pursuant to Hall v. Noble Drilling U. Consequently, defendants, not plaintiff, had the burden of proving those expenses were excessive. Barnes v. Sea Haw. Rafting, LLC , F.