Court Has Jurisdiction To Reinstate Jones Act Action Which Was Dismissed After Being Settled But Where The Defendant Did Not Comply With The Terms Of The Settlement Even Where The Court Did Not Specifically Retain Jurisdiction To Enforce The Settlement Be
LAWRENCE BROWN, Plaintiff, - against - M/V "GLOBAL LINK" etal., Defendants.
01 Civ. 8298 (DC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OFNEW YORK
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14723
August 21, 2003, Decided
August 26, 2003, Filed
DISPOSITION: Plaintiff's request to reinstate action to enforce settlement agreement granted.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff seaman's personal injury action against defendants under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. § 688 et seq., and general maritime and admiralty laws was settled. The court entered a 60-day order, dismissing the action, and subsequently entered a stipulation of dismissal. When a dispute arose regarding defendants' compliance with the settlement agreement, the seaman requested that the court reinstate the action and enforce the agreement.
OVERVIEW: Neither the court's 60-day order nor the stipulation of dismissal provided for the retention of jurisdiction or incorporated the terms of the settlement. The parties disputed whether defendants were required to pay a portion of the settlement to the New York County Child Support Enforcement Unit pursuant to a restraining notice. The court held that while it did not retain jurisdiction over the action for purposes of enforcing the terms of the settlement, the settlement agreement was a maritime contract over which the court had an independent basis for jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1333. Specifically, the agreement related to maritime employment and extinguished the seaman's claims against defendants for injuries sustained while employed on a maritime vessel. Because the agreement was a maritime contract, the court had jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the agreement.
OUTCOME: The court granted the seaman's request to reinstate the action.
