What Effect do Admiralty Laws Have on State Law?

Useful Rulings on Admiralty Laws Effect on State Law

Recent Rulings on Admiralty Laws Effect on State Law

DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS LLC VS MARTIN SILVERMAN

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s default package and identified the following issues: - Plaintiff’s proof of service indicates defendant was served via substituted service at 4712 Admiralty Way. It is unclear, however, why that address is a proper location for service, and the process server’s own declaration indicates the address is a UPS store. Plaintiff must provide further evidence to show service was proper. DENIED. An OSC will be scheduled for plaintiff to address these defects.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

WILLIAM J WHITSITT VS CITY OF STOCKTON ET AL.

. – Department 7A Introduction: Plaintiff William Whitsitt has filed an action he titled “Suit at Law for Section 1983, 1985, 52.1, 52.3, for denial and interference with 4th, 14th Rights, Denial of 1st Amendment Right to Freedom of Religion and Religious Freedom Right and Right to Education and Religious Education also Constitutionality Challenge in Admiralty – Civil Law Jurisdiction of Civil Contempt Arrest Versus my Inalienable Common Law At-Law Rights” (“Plaintiff’s Complaint” or “Complaint”) on or about

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

  • Judge

    Doug Mewhinney

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

WILLIAM J WHITSITT VS CITY OF STOCKTON ET AL.

. – Department 7A Introduction: Plaintiff William Whitsitt has filed an action he titled “Suit at Law for Section 1983, 1985, 52.1, 52.3, for denial and interference with 4th, 14th Rights, Denial of 1st Amendment Right to Freedom of Religion and Religious Freedom Right and Right to Education and Religious Education also Constitutionality Challenge in Admiralty – Civil Law Jurisdiction of Civil Contempt Arrest Versus my Inalienable Common Law At-Law Rights” (“Plaintiff’s Complaint” or “Complaint”) on or about

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

  • Judge

    Doug Mewhinney

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

WILLIAM J WHITSITT VS CITY OF STOCKTON ET AL.

. – Department 7A Introduction: Plaintiff William Whitsitt has filed an action he titled “Suit at Law for Section 1983, 1985, 52.1, 52.3, for denial and interference with 4th, 14th Rights, Denial of 1st Amendment Right to Freedom of Religion and Religious Freedom Right and Right to Education and Religious Education also Constitutionality Challenge in Admiralty – Civil Law Jurisdiction of Civil Contempt Arrest Versus my Inalienable Common Law At-Law Rights” (“Plaintiff’s Complaint” or “Complaint”) on or about

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

  • Judge

    Doug Mewhinney

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

MICHAEL THABET ET AL VS YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION ET AL

Cases that involve a watercraft collision on navigable waters fall within admiralty law’s domain. (Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Calhoun (1996) 516 U.S. 199, 206 (Calhoun).) “With admiralty jurisdiction” often “comes the application of substantive admiralty law.” (East River S.S. Corp. v. Transmaerica Delaval Inc. (1986) 476 U.S. 858, 864.) However, state law is not automatically displaced if admiralty law is applied. (Calhoun, supra, at p. 206.) Both parties cites Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2019

KLINGER V. CARLETON

The Superior Court of California is not a military tribunal and not a court of admiralty. The Superior Court is not a non-judicial, private, for profit court in a commercial matter acting as a foreign vessel in dry dock in violation of the Constitution and the land jurisdiction. It is a duly constituted Superior Court of California.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2019

ANA LUQUE VS ABM BUILDING VALUE ET AL

The contractual arbitration agreement at issue in that case stated in relevant part: [T]he Company and crew member agree that any and all disputes, claims, or controversies whatsoever (whether in contract, regulatory, tort or otherwise and whether pre-existing, present or future and including constitutional, statutory, common law, admiralty, intentional tort and equitable claims) relating to or in any way arising out of or connected with the Crew Agreement, these terms, or services performed for the Company

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2019

BURNS VS. ALBEE INDUSTRIES INC

Plaintiff goes beyond merely alleging "Albee was the owner, CEO, CFO and agent for service of process for Admiralty Marine, and was responsible for making all business decisions related to Admiralty Marine," by alleging "Admiralty Marine does not adhere corporate formalities" and "Admiralty Marine and Albee comingle funds." (SAC, ¶¶ 3, 5-6.) This satisfies the first element – a unity of interest that ignores corporate separateness.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BURNS VS. ALBEE INDUSTRIES INC

Plaintiff goes beyond merely alleging "Albee was the owner, CEO, CFO and agent for service of process for Admiralty Marine, and was responsible for making all business decisions related to Admiralty Marine," by alleging "Admiralty Marine does not adhere corporate formalities" and "Admiralty Marine and Albee comingle funds." (SAC, ¶¶ 3, 5-6.) This satisfies the first element – a unity of interest that ignores corporate separateness.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BURNS VS. ALBEE INDUSTRIES INC

Plaintiff goes beyond merely alleging "Albee was the owner, CEO, CFO and agent for service of process for Admiralty Marine, and was responsible for making all business decisions related to Admiralty Marine," by alleging "Admiralty Marine does not adhere corporate formalities" and "Admiralty Marine and Albee comingle funds." (SAC, ¶¶ 3, 5-6.) This satisfies the first element – a unity of interest that ignores corporate separateness.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BURNS VS. ALBEE INDUSTRIES INC

Plaintiff goes beyond merely alleging "Albee was the owner, CEO, CFO and agent for service of process for Admiralty Marine, and was responsible for making all business decisions related to Admiralty Marine," by alleging "Admiralty Marine does not adhere corporate formalities" and "Admiralty Marine and Albee comingle funds." (SAC, ¶¶ 3, 5-6.) This satisfies the first element – a unity of interest that ignores corporate separateness.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BURNS VS. ALBEE INDUSTRIES INC

Plaintiff goes beyond merely alleging "Albee was the owner, CEO, CFO and agent for service of process for Admiralty Marine, and was responsible for making all business decisions related to Admiralty Marine," by alleging "Admiralty Marine does not adhere corporate formalities" and "Admiralty Marine and Albee comingle funds." (SAC, ¶¶ 3, 5-6.) This satisfies the first element – a unity of interest that ignores corporate separateness.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BURNS VS. ALBEE INDUSTRIES INC

Plaintiff goes beyond merely alleging "Albee was the owner, CEO, CFO and agent for service of process for Admiralty Marine, and was responsible for making all business decisions related to Admiralty Marine," by alleging "Admiralty Marine does not adhere corporate formalities" and "Admiralty Marine and Albee comingle funds." (SAC, ¶¶ 3, 5-6.) This satisfies the first element – a unity of interest that ignores corporate separateness.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BRADFORD DAVID JONES, ET AL VS THE BARGE, LLC, ET AL

Numerous federal cases have held in a variety of contexts that assumption of the risk is not permitted as an affirmative defense in admiralty law. Instead, it is deemed a species of contributory negligence which may diminish a plaintiff's recovery in proportion to his share of comparative fault but will not bar recovery in whole. (Barber v. Marina Sailing, Inc. (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 558, 568.) The court will not grant summary judgment or adjudication based on this affirmative defense.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SHERRY STERLING VS EDWARD LEAL DE ROZA JR., ET AL.

., and Marina Admiralty Company for damages arising out of an incident that occurred at Defendants’ apartment building. Plaintiff alleges the residents of Defendants’ building, including Plaintiff and da Roza, were invited to Defendants’ annual Halloween party on 10/27/17. She alleges Defendants invited its residents to an event with light refreshments and live music.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GUNTHER VS ALASKA AIR GROUP INC

Two of the parties in the Tidewater case were bound by a Ninth Circuit decision finding no preemption, but one of the remaining parties, Zapata, "argue[d] that regulating the overtime of seamen would be impractical because of the variable and unpredictable nature of their workdays," and because "general principles of federal admiralty law regulate the hours and working conditions of maritime workers, including a right to a 'reasonable amount of extra wages' for overtime."

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GUNTHER VS ALASKA AIR GROUP INC

Two of the parties in the Tidewater case were bound by a Ninth Circuit decision finding no preemption, but one of the remaining parties, Zapata, "argue[d] that regulating the overtime of seamen would be impractical because of the variable and unpredictable nature of their workdays," and because "general principles of federal admiralty law regulate the hours and working conditions of maritime workers, including a right to a 'reasonable amount of extra wages' for overtime."

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GUNTHER VS ALASKA AIR GROUP INC

Two of the parties in the Tidewater case were bound by a Ninth Circuit decision finding no preemption, but one of the remaining parties, Zapata, "argue[d] that regulating the overtime of seamen would be impractical because of the variable and unpredictable nature of their workdays," and because "general principles of federal admiralty law regulate the hours and working conditions of maritime workers, including a right to a 'reasonable amount of extra wages' for overtime."

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FREDERICK MONDRAGON VS METRO CRUISE SERVICES

Further, in admiralty cases, federal law governs the enforceability of forum-selection clauses. (Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute (1991) 499 U.S. 585, 590.) In considering whether a forum-selection clause in a cruise ship ticket is reasonable, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized: First, a cruise line has a special interest in limiting the fora in which it potentially could be subject to suit.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2018

  • Judge

    Stephen I. Goorvitch or Elaine Lu

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

US BANK TRUST NA AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST VS PLATT

The Court also strikes the sections entitled "Default" and "Notice to the Court" which refer to the "Negative Averments" and "protocols of admiralty jurisdiction" at Page 12. These paragraphs are incongruous and meaningless. Defendant Michael David Platt is granted leave to file a First Amended Verified Answer no later than 20 days from service of this ruling. Plaintiff shall give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2018

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

EDDY MCHENRY VS KATIES SEAFOOD MARKET LLC ET AL

Under maritime law, the Court must “scrutinize the validity of a seaman's release under principles of admiralty law analogous to the duty owed by a fiduciary to a beneficiary, not solely under principles of contract law.” (Orsini v. O/S/ Seabrooke O.N. (9th Cir. 2001) 247 F.3d 953, 959.) “Garrett [v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2018

AMANDA VASQUEZ VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA ET AL

Federal Arbitration Act “[T]he [Federal Arbitration Act] was enacted pursuant to Congress' substantive power to regulate interstate commerce and admiralty . . .” (Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams (2001) 532 U.S. 105, 112.) The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) governs written arbitration agreements in the employment context. (Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams (2001) 532 U.S. 105, 109, 113.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY VS. STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY ET AL

The underlying litigation will likely address and resolve several legal and factual issues that overlap with the issues raised by the pleadings in this case, including whether admiralty jurisdiction exists for the claims asserted in the underlying litigation, the injured individuals were employees or special employees of SCV Woodworks. Inc., and the exclusive remedy provisions of California workers' compensation laws or federal statutes bar some or all of the claims asserted in the underlying action.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2017

BC

Plaintiffs’ depositions shall take place at the office of counsel for Defendant Gonzalez-Hernandez, Voss, Silverman & Braybrooke LLP, located at 4640 Admiralty Way, Suite 800, Marina Del Rey, California 90292-6602. Plaintiffs shall also produce all records, documents, or tangible things responsive to the document request included in Defendant KSE’s and Defendant Gonzalez-Hernandez’s deposition notices. Because Defendant Gonzalez-Hernandez’s Motion is granted, the Court must impose monetary sanctions.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2017

TONY J WILLIAMS VS THOMAS ROGER GILLMAN

Plaintiff alleges that, on July 23, 2015, he was riding a bicycle southbound along Admiralty Way in a marked crosswalk when defendant’s vehicle collided with plaintiff. On September 6, 2016, the court granted plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel. On February 14, 2017, the court denied defendant’s motions to compel discovery responses because defendant had not served plaintiff’s counsel with the motions.

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

1 2     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.