After employer attempts to remove an injured worker's Jones Act claim to Federal Court claiming that the injured worker was not a Jones Act Seaman...
After employer attempts to remove an injured worker's Jones Act claim to Federal Court claiming that the injured worker was not a Jones Act Seaman, the Federal Court grants a remand to state Court where the injured worker spent nearly two thirds of his time aboard vessels and received a permanent assignment to work aboard an oil rig prior to the injury.
ZACHARIAH N. ANGLIN VERSUS DIAMOND OFFSHORE DRILLING, INC. AND CONTINENTAL LABORATORIES, INC.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-1617 SECTION A(2)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20121
October 22, 2002, Decided
October 22, 2002, Filed, Entered
DISPOSITION: Plaintiff's Motion to Remand GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff putative seaman sued defendants, contract employer and drilling rig leasing company, for personal injuries in state court. Defendants disputed plaintiff's seaman status under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 688. They alleged fraudulent joinder of the Jones Act claim to defeat jurisdiction. The leasing company removed the case. The seaman moved to remand and for attorney's fees and costs.
OVERVIEW: The leasing company asserted that the putative seaman's assignments were based solely upon the oil companies' selection of drilling contractors, and not as assigned or made by his contract employer. Since he did not work aboard a vessel or fleet of vessels owned by his employer, there was no possibility that he could establish a Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 688, claim. The putative seaman argued that, he spent nearly two-thirds of his time aboard vessels owned by the leasing company. Further, he received a permanent assignment from his employer to work aboard the leasing company's rig. There was a reasonable basis for predicting that the putative seaman might establish that he was a seaman. His duties might be reasonably considered as contributing to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission. His connection to the leasing company's oil rigs might be reasonably considered as substantial in terms of both its duration and its nature. At the time of the injury, he was assigned to work aboard the leasing company's vessel for an indefinite period of time.
OUTCOME: The putative seaman's motion to remand was granted, but the request for attorney's fees and costs was denied.
