Forum Selection Clause In Seaman's Contract, Requiring Suit In Federal Court Only, Is Held Not Enforceable By Alaska Supreme Court Pursuant To The Savings To Suitors Clause...
Forum Selection Clause In Seaman's Contract, Requiring Suit In Federal Court Only, Is Held Not Enforceable By Alaska Supreme Court Pursuant To The Savings To Suitors Clause In 28 U.S.C. §1333 And The Seaman's Right To Sue In Any Eligible Forum Under The Jones Act.
MIGUEL NUNEZ, Appellant, v. AMERICAN SEAFOODS, Appellee.
Supreme Court No. S-9875, No. 5593
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA
2002 Alas. LEXIS 98
July 12, 2002, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Dillingham, Fred Torrisi, Judge. Superior Court No. 3DI-99-141 CI.
DISPOSITION: Reversed.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant employee filed suit against appellee employer for injuries sustained while working on a fishing vessel. The employer moved to dismiss based a contract clause requiring the employee to file any suit in federal court. The Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Dillingham (Alaska), upheld the forum clause, and granted the employer's motion to dismiss without prejudice to re-file in federal court. The employee appealed.
OVERVIEW: On appeal, the employee challenged the judgment of the trial court, which held that a contractual forum selection clause required him to sue in federal court. The employee argued that the forum selection clause was void, as it violated federal law. The appellate court held that the employment contract's forum selection clause was invalid, as it violated the employee's right to sue under the Jones Act in any eligible forum. The saving to suitors clause in 28 U.S.C.S. § 1333 gave the employee a comparable right to select a state or federal forum. Under the Jones Act, the employee stood in a position perfectly analogous to that of a railroad worker under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA). Section 5 of FELA required that the employee's right to bring suit in "any eligible forum" be deemed substantive and that any contractual provision purporting to limit it be deemed void.
OUTCOME: The judgment was reversed.
