Effect of Admiralty Laws on State Laws in California

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.

The court determined there was no admiralty jurisdiction. “The Court cannot conceive how the incident at bar satisfies the stated jurisdictional test when the historical underpinnings of admiralty law are considered. Neither party here can be said to have been involved in maritime navigation or commerce in the true admiralty sense, nor in the Court's opinion does any aspect of this matter relate in a significant way to the original concepts of federal admiralty law.” Id. at 325.

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.

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.

Thus, admiralty law applies, which disallows the affirmative defense of assumption of risk. (Barber v. Marina Sailing, Inc. (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 558, 568 ["assumption of the risk is not permitted as an affirmative defense in admiralty law."].) Defendants do not dispute that admiralty law applies and that assumption of risk is not a defense. As to the argument Plaintiff exhausted his remedies, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was employed by BAE Systems San Diego Shiprepair, and not by Defendants.

Assuming this Court has concurrent admiralty jurisdiction: Continue trial to 5/10/10 @ 1:30 p.m., ctrm. 40. No additional parties incl. DOEs absent further order from gmr. gmr

Admiralty Marine and Structural Engineering was served on 06/25/14. Statutory time to respond has not yet expired, and no response has been filed to date. Continue to 08/22/14 at 8:15 a.m. in Courtroom 22B. Clerk to give notice.

Application of Maritime Law Company argue s the instant action is governed by maritime /admiralty law. For a tort claim to sound i n admiralty jurisdiction, “[t]he relevant tort or harm must have (1) taken place on navigable water (or a vessel on navigable water having caused an injury on land), (2) “a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce,” and (3) a “substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity.”” ( Ali v.

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.

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.

Federal Admiralty Jurisdiction The parties agree that the threshold issue is whether federal admiralty jurisdiction is implicated under the facts of the case. If it is not, then Plaintiff’s claim is governed entirely by the workers’ compensation system, and does not survive in state court. The parties also agree that there is a two-step test to determine whether or not federal admiralty jurisdiction is implicated. First, the party invoking jurisdiction must satisfy a locality test.

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.

Moreover, [w]ith admiralty jurisdiction comes the application of substantive admiralty law. ( East River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc. (1986), 476 U.S. 858, 864.) There is no exception to the application of maritime law for cases involving recreational vessels. ( Foremost Ins. Co. v. Richardson (1982) 457 U.S. 668, 675 (finding admiralty jurisdiction over collision between two pleasure boats on navigable waters); Sisson v.

DISCUSSION Seamen Treated as “Wards of Admiralty” to Offset the Special Hazards and Disadvantages to Which they are Subjected The controversy involved in this case are brought in admiralty under the Jones Act because it involves maritime torts. (Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co. (1942) 317 U.S. 239, 243-244.) In particular, Congress in seeking to safeguard seamen’s rights passed a protective act for seamen and treats them as “wards of admiralty.” (Id. at p. 246.)

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.

Plaintiff correctly notes that the doctrine of assumption of the risk does not apply to admiralty cases. See De Sole v. United States (1991 4th Cir.) 947 F.2d 1169, 1174. Lastly, the worker's compensation argument is untimely because it was raised in the reply brief and it is also frivolous. Worker's compensation exclusivity does not apply because plaintiff and defendant do not have an employment relationship.

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.

Ultimately, however, the issues raised by Defendants do not appear to turn on any differences in the substantive law among the various possibilities mentioned by the parties (including Defendants’ own analysis of the admiralty law that they claim does not apply).

He alleges that on July 23, 2015, he was riding a bicycle southbound along Admiralty Way. Plaintiff approached a marked crosswalk 600 feet north of the intersection of Admiralty Way and Bali Way. At the same time, defendant was travelling northbound also approaching the marked crosswalk. Plaintiff proceeded to enter the crosswalk and defendant failed to yield the right of way to plaintiff. Defendant’s vehicle collided with plaintiff, resulting in significant injury to plaintiff.

Analysis Defendant Marina Admiralty Co. moves to strike Plaintiffs Thomas Mastro and Andrea Almasis claim for punitive damages. Here, Plaintiffs do not allege any acts of malice, oppression or fraud as required to support a claim of punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294.

D and her staff at her offices at 4519 Admiralty Way, Suite b, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 on April 10th, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. (or an alternate date to which the parties agree.) The purpose of the examination is to investigate the claims made by Plaintiff of suffering emotional distress and mental suffering as a result of the claimed harassment and other alleged wrongdoing by Defendant.

“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.”

While Defendant’s original moving papers and Separate Statement focused on Plaintiff’s constructive knowledge that the Horizon Pacific was part of the fleet of ships to which the “no sail” clause applied, Defendant’s Reply pivots from this position to address the argument raised by Plaintiff’s Opposition that Admiralty law requires a seaman to have actual knowledge of the terms of a release before it can be enforced against him.

Plaintiffs allege Defendant Admiralty, Marine, and Structural Engineering, Inc. is liable for a defective oil rig fell (first cause of action) and products liability for a defective oil derrick (third cause of action). Defendant was named as Doe 1 (and although the complaint alleges all causes of action against all Does, it does not appear that Plaintiffs are claiming that Defendant is subject to liability under the second cause of action.)

Admiralty law does not recognize the assumption of the risk doctrine. See Barber v. Sailing, Inc. (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 558. Defendant's argument that he owed no duty of care to plaintiffs based on the nature of the activity engaged in is a primary assumption of the risk argument. The Court grants summary adjudication as to issues 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 [seaman status]. It does not appear that defendant is challenging the first element of Chandris, Inc. v.

Allegations of the Complaint Plaintiff, Sherry Sterling filed this action against Defendants, Edward Leal da Roza, Jr., Mariners Village Apartment Homes, E&S Ring Management Corp., 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.

Motion to Compel IME Defendants seek an order that Plaintiff appear for an IME with Luke Macyszyn, M.D. on July 26, 2021, at 4640 Admiralty Way Suite 500 Marina Del Rey, CA 90292, at 11:15 a.m. Defendants assert Plaintiff currently resides in Port Arthur, Texas, but there is good cause for requiring Plaintiff to travel to California for the IME because Plaintiff chose a forum in California to litigate this action. Defendants contend the IME is necessary to evaluate Plaintiff’s claims.

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.)

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.

employee, or his legal representative in case death results from the injury, may elect to claim compensation under the chapter, or to maintain an action at law or in admiralty for damages on account of such injury or death. & (33 U.S.C. § 905(a) (emphasis added).)

According to Countys counsel, on September 7, 2018, Defendant Boutin was driving her vehicle in the eastbound number one lane of Admiralty Way at approximately 20 mph and as she approached the intersection of Marina City Drive, she observed Plaintiff begin to proceed into the intersection from the left turn lane of the driveway of the Marina City Club. (Motion, Lee Decl., ¶ 2.) Boutin attempted to brake, but collided with Plaintiff. (Id., ¶ 3.)

Section 5 provides: A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration may petition any United States district court which, save for such agreement, would have jurisdiction under title 28, in a civil action or in admiralty of the subject matter of a suit arising out of the controversy between the parties, for an order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement.

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.

Claimant RA Morales is ordered to appear for his deposition within 30 days at the Law Office of Voss, Silverman & Braybrooke LLP, 4640 Admiralty Way, Suite 800, Marina del Rey, California, 90292. Unless the parties mutually agree otherwise in writing, the deposition of claimant RA Morales shall take place on a day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or court holiday.

(“E&S”) and Marina Admiralty Company (collectively, “Defendants”) owned and controlled and struck her head on the rocks below. Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff opposes the motion. LEGAL STANDARD – MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law[.]

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.

Plaintiff, however, issued an unlawful detainer action to evict Defendant (b) The parties to this action to be contacted through their counsel of record, Tatone Law, APC, 4333 Admiralty Way, Suite 100, Marina del Rey, CA 90292, 424-289-9707.

A superior courts general subject matter jurisdiction does not extend to [c]ases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts, including, but limited to, bankruptcy actions, where the United States is a necessary or indispensable party, patent and copyright actions, admiralty actions, immigration actions, and actions brought against Indian tribes. (Cal.

The court held a plaintiff in admiralty can recover for physical damage to property caused by a defective product. ( Id. at pp. 876-877.) Saratoga Fishing did not involve personal injury or a Navy ship. It did not address whether the contractor that constructs a Navy ship can be liable for installing defective parts on the ship. Therefore, the analysis and holding in Saratoga Fishing does not apply here.

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.

“Article III of the United States Constitution gives federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over all admiralty and maritime matters, but 28 United States Code section 1333, subdivision (1) grants state courts concurrent jurisdiction under the so called ‘saving to suitors clause.’ This clause provides for in personam remedies which ‘means that an injured party may have claims arising from a single accident under both federal maritime and state common or statutory law.

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.

Here, Plaintiffs filed a proof of service on September 2, 2021, which reflects service on Sixt via personal service at 4640 Admiralty Way FI 5, Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6636 on August 24, 2021. (See September 2, 2021.) Service was purportedly effectuated on an agent of Sixt, Tiffany Phillips. (See September 2, 2021.)

Courts apply substantive federal maritime law when admiralty jurisdiction exists, but when there is no general maritime rule on a particular issue, courts apply state law. Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (1955) 348 U.S. 310, 314-316. Evidentiary Objections Plaintiff’s Objections: OVERRULED. Sea Legend/Mollers’ MSJ/MSA: Negligence A vessel owner has a duty to exercise reasonable care to make a vessel safe for use by a reasonable person. Cohen v. Carnival Corp.

The court held a plaintiff in admiralty can recover for physical damage to property caused by a defective product. ( Id. at pp. 876-877.) Saratoga Fishing did not involve personal injury or a Navy ship. It did not address whether the contractor that constructs a Navy ship can be liable for installing defective parts on the ship. Therefore, the analysis and holding in Saratoga Fishing do not apply here.

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."

Cl. 336 for the proposition that one who is not identified on a bill of lading has no privity with the parties so identified are unavailing, as the former case involved the application of admiralty law to the custom and practice for assigning liability for bills of lading where a ship had been sold on credit in the early 19th century, and the latter case, as in Fikse, involved the government’s liability under the Tucker Act.

“It is well established that torts committed on navigable waters, such as the instant action, are governed by admiralty law. The elements of maritime negligence are essentially the same as those for common law negligence.

Shipowners & Merchants Towboat Co. (1945) 26 Cal.2d 365, 371 [a state court ¡°must preserve all substantial admiralty rights of the litigants¡±].) Having provided no authority as to the inapplicability of federal substantive law, the People have not met their burden of persuasion that, as a matter of law, federal maritime law could not provide a basis for Lobo¡¯s claimed property interest in the Panga boat. Consequently, the motion to strike will be denied. As the court in People v.

September 25, 2020 Allegations of the Complaint Plaintiff, Sherry Sterling filed this action against Defendants, Edward Leal da Roza, Jr., Mariners Village Apartment Homes, E&S Ring Management Corp., 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.

In admiralty cases, foreign forum selection provisions are deemed “prima facie valid” and will not be set aside unless the resisting party could meet the “heavy burden” of showing that enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust, or that the court should invalidate the clause for such reasons as fraud or overreaching. (The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. (1972) 407 U.S. 1, 8–10.) Here, contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, the burden is actually on Plaintiff, not on Defendant. (See Pl.’s Opp. 3:27–4:6.)

Yet the doctrine of assumption of risk [i]s not a total bar in admiralty actions. ( Gemp v. United States (6th Cir. 1982) 684 F.2d 404, 408409; see also Barber v. Marina Sailing, Inc., (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 558, 571 [the general rule in federal maritime law precludes the assumption of risk defense].) In Barber v.

App. 4th at p. 109 [§ 25501 "retain[s] the privity requirement from common law fraud"]; Admiralty v. Jones (9th Cir.1982) 677 F. 2d 1289, 1296 [under § 25501, "liability was limited to actual sellers" and seller's attorney "was not the literal seller, as required by this section"]; cf. Scognamillo v. Credit Suisse First Boston LLC (N. D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2005, No. C03–2061) 2005 WL 2045807, p. 9, 2005 U.S.Dist.

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

Prejudgment interest in federal cases is a matter of federal common law, particularly in maritime and admiralty cases. City of Milwaukee v. Cement Div., Nat'l Gypsum Co., 515 U.S. 189, 194 (1995). The federal common law is not controlling here. In California, prejudgment interest is strictly a matter of statutory construction. Since Civil Code § 3291 is not applicable here, prejudgment interest on the future economic loss damages is available, if at all, only under Civil Code § 3287.

(d) Rules of pleading, practice, and procedure prescribed by the United States Supreme Court, such as the Rules of the United States Supreme Court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Admiralty Rules, the Rules of the Court of Claims, the Rules of the Customs Court, and the General Orders and Forms in Bankruptcy. (e) The true signification of all English words and phrases and of all legal expressions.

(d) Rules of pleading, practice, and procedure prescribed by the United States Supreme Court, such as the Rules of the United States Supreme Court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Admiralty Rules, the Rules of the Court of Claims, the Rules of the Customs Court, and the General Orders and Forms in Bankruptcy. (e) The true signification of all English words and phrases and of all legal expressions.

. – 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

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.

(d) Rules of pleading, practice, and procedure prescribed by the United States Supreme Court, such as the Rules of the United States Supreme Court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Admiralty Rules, the Rules of the Court of Claims, the Rules of the Customs Court, and the General Orders and Forms in Bankruptcy. (e) The true signification of all English words and phrases and of all legal expressions.

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."

No notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to submit on the tentative decision, you may send a telefax to Judge Cody's secretary at 805-662-6712, stating that you submit on the tentative. Please include the hearing date, the case name and case number on your telefax. Do not call in lieu of sending a telefax, nor should you call to see i...

Motion to Quash Service of Summons is set for 09/10/14 in Ctrm 20. CMC/OSC is premature at this time. Continue CMC/OSC to 10/20/14 at 8:15 a.m. in Courtroom 22B. Clerk to give notice....