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

SEERY VS GRAHAM-MILLER

This is an admiralty case arising from plaintiff's 15 foot fall from the deck of the F/V REMACK while it was in port for repairs in Port Moller on the Alaskan Peninsula. He alleges that as the result of the fall, he suffered "severe injuries, including, without limitation, to his collarbone, shoulders, back, neck, and head."

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BRIAN RANGER VS ALAMITOS BAY YACHT CLUB

The parties agree that a claim that falls under federal admiralty law is not precluded by the workers’ compensation exclusivity provisions. Thus, the most important inquiry on this demurrer is whether the complaint alleges a claim that arises pursuant to federal admiralty law.

  • Hearing

  • 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

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ANDREW STROUD VS SCUBA MANIA INC ET AL

Admiralty Jurisdiction and Maritime Law The defense of assumption of the risk is not available in Maritime Law. See, e.g., Barber v. Marina Sailing, Inc. 36 Cal.App.4th 558, 568-572 (1995). Thus, the Court will first analyze whether Admiralty Jurisdiction applies to this case. The Court notes that this issue was first addressed in connection with Defendant’s Motion to Strike First Amended Complaint.

  • Hearing

BOWEN VS. CITY OF TUSTIN

Prol is inapplicable as it involved an admiralty action in U.S. District Court in New York, which specifically applied Admiralty Rule 38 in its decision. The present matter is not an admiralty matter, nor to admiralty rules apply. The MTD is Moot. Tustin to give notice as to both rulings.

  • Hearing

DONNA JACKSON VS PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD. , ET AL.

“the tests for determining whether an action falls within or without the jurisdiction of admiralty differ between actions based upon contracts and those based upon torts.” (Graco, Inc. v. Colberg, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 322, 327.) “The test whether a contract action is within the jurisdiction of admiralty depends upon the maritime nature of the subject matter of the contract, and neither the place where the contract is made, nor the place where its obligations are to be performed is determinative.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PENDERGAST VS HORNBLOWER FLEET LLC

"Prior to the enactment of the admiralty statute of limitations, we were faced with the question of whether a state statute of limitations or the admiralty doctrine of laches controlled a diversity action for injuries arising from a maritime tort. King v. Alaska S.S. Co., 431 F. 2d 994 (9th Cir. 1970). We concluded that the admiralty doctrine of laches controls holding that 'the legal rights and liabilities ... are measurable by the standards of maritime law.' Id. at 996.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PENDERGAST VS HORNBLOWER FLEET LLC

"Prior to the enactment of the admiralty statute of limitations, we were faced with the question of whether a state statute of limitations or the admiralty doctrine of laches controlled a diversity action for injuries arising from a maritime tort. King v. Alaska S.S. Co., 431 F. 2d 994 (9th Cir. 1970). We concluded that the admiralty doctrine of laches controls holding that 'the legal rights and liabilities ... are measurable by the standards of maritime law.' Id. at 996.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

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

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

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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

1 2 3     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.