Cruise Ship Law

TIMOTHY DOYLE; GREG HAGAMAN; BRIAN LAGUE; ANTHONY W. RICHARDS; ERIC EDWARDS, Plaintiffs, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. HUNTRESS, INC.; RELENTLESS, INC., Defendants, Appellees/Cross-Appellants, GREG BRAY and KYLE GOODWIN, Defendants.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 1436
January 25, 2008, decided

PROCEDURAL POSTURE Plaintiff fishermen sued defendant vessel owners, alleging that, as the owners did not reduce to writing their compensation arrangements, they had violated 46 U.S.C.S. ¤ 10601. The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted partial summary judgment in favor of the fishermen, finding that a cause of action was created under 46 U.S.C.S. ¤ 11107. At issue on interlocutory appeal was the application of the doctrine of laches.

OVERVIEW: The fishermen, while paid, worked on voyages from 1993 to 2000 under lay share contracts that did not comply with 46 U.S.C.S. ¤ 10601. The vessel owners asserted a laches defense, which the federal district court found meritorious as to all claims before August 1, 1998, three years before the filing of the complaint. Neither ¤ 10601 nor 46 U.S.C.S. ¤ 11107 contained a statute of limitations; the initial determination, therefore, was the most analogous statute of limitations. According to the federal court of appeals, the district court correctly chose R.I. Gen. Laws ¤ 28-14-20, which provided for the coverage of unpaid wages, and which comported with the hospitable view that the law had traditionally taken toward seaman. Further, the lay shares met the R.I. Gen. Laws ¤ 28-14-1(4) definition of wages. Moreover, the district court's reasoning-that it was inequitable to require the vessel owners, who had paid all wages from 1993 to 1998, to come up with additional monies, particularly as the fishermen had been determined not to be as valuable as others to the success of the enterprise-was within its discretion. So too was its calculation of amounts due for claims after August 1, 1998.

OUTCOME: The judgment of the federal district court was affirmed.