VENUE IN JONES ACT SUIT IS PROPER WHEREVER COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANT.
FRED T. RICHOUX, JR v. R & G SHRIMP CO. ET AL
CIVIL ACTION NO. G-00-299
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, GALVESTON DIVISION
2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18996
December 21, 2000, Decided
December 22, 2000, Entered
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: In a Jones Act suit for injury to a deck hand while at sea, defendants moved to dismiss for improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer venue.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff was injured while working as a deck hand off the coast. He brought suit under the Jones Act in that division closest to the accident. Defendants moved to dismiss for improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to another division within the same district. The motion to dismiss for improper venue was denied. The court rejected defendants' argument that venue had to be the division in which plaintiff's employer resided because it was based on a case decided under a repealed federal statute. Under admiralty law, venue was proper in any district where the court had jurisdiction over the defendant. In admiralty law, venue and personal jurisdiction analyses merged. The motion to transfer venue was denied. Defendants failed to demonstrate that transfer was necessary to serve the interests of justice or the convenience of the witnesses and parties. The court refused to disturb the forum selection made by the plaintiff.
OUTCOME: The motion to dismiss was denied because under admiralty law, venue was in any district where the district court had jurisdiction over the defendants. The fact that defendants resided in another division of the district did not make the venue incorrect. The motion to transfer venue was denied because defendants failed to show that transfer was needed to serve the interests of justice or the convenience of the witnesses and parties.
