SHIPOWNER'S MOTION TO DISMISS SEAMAN'S INJURY ACTION AND CLAIM FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE GRANTED...
SHIPOWNER'S MOTION TO DISMISS SEAMAN'S INJURY ACTION AND CLAIM FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE GRANTED WHERE SHIPOWNER DID NOT HAVE CONTINUOUS AND SYSTEMATIC CONTACTS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT GENERAL JURISDICTION AND SEAMAN COULD NOT SHOW THAT SHIPOWNER EXERCISED SIGNIFICANT CONTROL OVER LOCAL UNION WHICH CREWED SHIPOWNER'S VESSEL
CHARLES FRISELLA VERSUS TRANSOCEANIC CABLE SHIP COMPANY,ET AL
CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-1855 SECTION "F"
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 943
January 11, 2002, Decided
January 11, 2002, Filed
DISPOSITION: Defendant TCSC's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction GRANTED.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff seaman filed an action against defendant shipping company, seeking damages for his injury and for maintenance and cure. Defendant moved to dismiss, contending that it did not have sufficient minimum contacts with Louisiana to support the court's assertion of personal jurisdiction over it.
OVERVIEW: The seaman was hired by the company pursuant to an agreement between the company and his seafarer's union. The seaman's complaint alleged that the company did business in Louisiana and failed to provide an adequate crew. The court held that the company did not have the type of continuous and systematic contacts with Louisiana necessary to support general jurisdiction. The court then examined the seaman's claims of specific jurisdiction that: (1) the seafarer's union acted as the company's agent, and so its activities should have been imputed to the company and (2) the union hired an "inadequate" crew inasmuch as the crew members' intentional actions caused his injuries. The court found that there was no evidence that the company exercised significant control over the union's activities in Louisiana. Instead, it was more accurate (and more factual) to say that the union acted as an agent for the seaman and the other union members who paid the union for its services. Furthermore, the court found that the connection between the seaman's injury and the union's hiring practices was tenuous at best.
OUTCOME: The shipping company's motion to dismiss was granted.
