by Christopher Hannan | Apr 28, 2014
In two recent decisions with critical implications for maritime practitioners and litigants in particular, the United States Supreme Court has re-written the script for determining the existence of personal jurisdiction over defendants/corporations sued outside of their home jurisdiction. The first opinion (Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 760 (2014)) addresses the relatively rarely invoked concept of general or “all-purpose” jurisdiction, while the second opinion (Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014), addresses specific or “case-linked” jurisdiction. Daimler marks a deliberate shift in the approach to general jurisdiction, whereas Walden provides a less dramatic – but equally important, in terms of succinct clarification – restatement of the law. Maritime practitioners and their clients should be equally conversant with both, as they may provide bases for dismissal and/or transfer of lawsuits filed against vessel-operating corporate defendants whose voyages may proceed well beyond the limits of their home fora. (more…)
by Christopher Hannan | Apr 11, 2014
In yet another twist in the tortured labors of the Hercules jurisprudence regarding removal of general maritime law claims under 28 U.S.C. §1441(a), the Eastern District of Louisiana has generated a new, divergent “head” on the body of prior decisions that have attempted to resolve the developing law on this issue. (more…)
by Christopher Hannan | Apr 11, 2014
As previously reported (regarding the Naquin decision), the Fifth Circuit recently expanded the scope of Jones Act seaman status to include a shipyard worker who spent 70% of his time working aboard vessels (usually moored to the shipyard’s dock, and only very occasionally while the vessels were being repositioned or on test-runs), and the remaining 30% of his time working in a fabrication shop or on a land-based crane. As the earlier post predicted, Naquin’s wake is already sending waves through the lower courts. (more…)
by Christopher Hannan | Apr 4, 2014
In the new world of shared regulatory oversight between the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and BSEE on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), a mundane devil-in-the-details – but nonetheless vitally important question – had gone unanswered: would BSEE incident investigation reports be admissible in civil proceedings, unlike USCG incident reports, which are indisputably inadmissible pursuant to express statutory terms (46 U.S.C. § 6308)? While there is no similar statutory prohibition barring admission of any reports, incidents of non-compliance (INCs), or other regulatory documents generated by a BSEE investigation, courts had yet to address the issue. (more…)
by Christopher Hannan | Apr 3, 2014
The three men in the tub will no longer have recourse to the federal courts’ admiralty jurisdiction, at least not in the Eastern District of Louisiana. In Martin v. Fab-Con, Inc., 2014 WL 1246073 (E.D. La. Mar. 24, 2014) – a slip-and-fall suit by a Jones act seaman for negligence, unseaworthiness, and general maritime law negligence – the court held that the dumb quarter barge UNITY where the accident occurred was not a vessel for purposes of admiralty jurisdiction under 1 U.S.C. §3, resulting in dismissal of all but the Jones Act claims. (more…)
