District Court's Failure To Dismiss Employer's Counterclaim Against Estate Of Jones Act Seaman For Loss Of Ship Was Not Immediately Appealable Under 28 Usc §1292(A)(3)
LUIS BOLANOS, et al., Plaintiffs, -against- NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINES LIMITED, d/b/a NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINES, et al., Defendants.
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF PMD ENTERPRISES, INC., AS OWNER OF THE VESSEL BETH DEE BOB, FOR EXONERATION FROM AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY; LISA MCLAUGHLIN, as wife and Personal Representative of the Estate of Edward J. McLaughlin, Deceased, Appellant v. CAPE MAY FOODS, INC. and PETER A. LAMONICA
No. 01-4144
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 17281
PRIOR HISTORY: On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. (D.C. Civil No. 00-cv-00161). District Judge: Hon. Garrett E. Brown, Jr.
DISPOSITION: Appeal was dismissed.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff widow filed a wrongful death suit against defendants, the employer of her deceased seaman husband, and others (claims against which were dismissed), under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. § 688. The employer filed a counterclaim for loss of its ship. The widow moved to dismiss the counterclaim. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the motion. Relying on 28 U.S.C.S. § 1292(a)(3), the widow appealed.
OVERVIEW: The district court treated the widow's motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment. The issue for the appellate court was whether the denial of summary judgment determined the rights and liabilities of the parties under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1292(a)(3). The appellate court held that no right or liability of the parties had been conclusively determined. Rather, the district court simply allowed the case to proceed. If the employer proved successful at trial with respect to its counterclaim, the widow could then, on appeal, advance what the appellate court described as an "interesting argument" that the employer could not counterclaim against the seaman's estate under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. § 688. Because the district court had not made a decision establishing the rights and liabilities of the parties, 28 U.S.C.S. § 1292(a)(3) did not permit an interlocutory appeal. The widow misconstrued the purpose of 28 U.S.C.S. § 1292(a)(3) in admiralty proceedings -- to allow a party found liable in an admiralty proceeding to take an immediate appeal without submitting to a protracted trial of the damage issues.
OUTCOME: The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
