What is the Jones Act?

Useful Rulings on Jones Act

Recent Rulings on Jones Act

MICHAEL CASTRO VS FOSS MARITIME COMPANY ET AL

Plaintiff also contends that the waiver is invalid under 45 USC § 55 (the Jones Act) because Jones Act employers may not exempt itself from liability. However, the Jones Act is not applicable to Rio Hondo who is not Plaintiff’s employer. Plaintiff conclusorily states that Rio Hondo was an “agent” and by extension, Plaintiff’s employer. Plaintiff failed to offer any evidence supporting this assertion.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BRIAN THOMPSON VS CITY OF LONG BEACH, ET AL.

Plaintiff Brian Thompson has sued the City (and Lloyd Thornburg, who is not associated with City) for injuries he suffered pursuant to the Jones Act and general maritime law. Plaintiff, an employee of Thornburg, was the Captain of the racing vessel Phaedo 3 in the 2017 Transpac race. Phaedo 3 was docked at the Pine Avenue Pier, owned by City.

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOHN LOWRY V. PORT SAN LUIS HARBOR DISTRICT

Plaintiff’s amended complaint (FAC) alleges causes of action for (1) negligence under the Jones Act (47 U.S.C. § 30104); (2) maintenance and cure; (3) unseaworthiness under the Jones Act; (4) unseaworthiness under the general maritime law (28 U.S.C. § 1333(a)); and (5) negligence under the general maritime Law. (FAC, passim.) Plaintiff alleges that on March 11, 2016, and while employed with the Port, he was injured in a fall while attempting to board a vessel moored at a pier. (FAC, ¶¶ 21, 23.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2019

SMITH VS. FAY SERVICING

That case is distinguishable, because the plaintiff brought suit in Texas, and the only matter at issue was the venue part of a dual selection clause: Great Lakes does not dispute that under the contract and under federal law, Ramos has the right to bring his Jones Act claim in Texas state court. In fact, the Agreement expressly states that the choices provided are entirely "at the option of the EMPLOYEE."

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2019

ROMAN AGUILAR VS CATALINA CLASSIC CRUISES INC ET AL

It concerned a shipowner’s duty to every seamen under the Jones Act. The plaintiff alleged that the vessel was unseaworthy. To establish negligence, the jury had to find that he was a member of the crew under the Jones Act. Lee v. Pacific Far East Line, Inc. (9th Cir. 1977) 566 F.2d 65, 67 Defendant’s duty is to exercise ordinary care to warn of any unreasonable risk of harm such as a dangerous condition known to Defendant and unknown to Plaintiff. Tradewind Transp. Co. v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2019

JOHN LOWRY V. PORT SAN LUIS HARBOR DISTRICT

Whether or not Plaintiff is a seaman under the Jones Act is not dispositive of his causes of action that do not arise under the Jones Act, which would remain to be tried regardless of whether or not Plaintiff is found to be a seaman under the Jones Act. Two separate trials, and all that each of those trials would entail, does not promote judicial economy.

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2019

JAIME A COLON VS APL MARINE SERVICES LTD

(“Defendant”) alleging violations of the Jones Act and maritime law for unseaworthiness arising from a fall that occurred on February 12, 2017. On April 23, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for a continuance of trial and all related dates because Plaintiff had undergone a multi-level lumbar fusion surgery and is expected to require 12-18 months of recovery time. Trial is set for July 25, 2019.

  • Hearing

    May 15, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LEWIS BROOKS JR VS RESOLVE MARINE GROUP

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges three causes of action for: (1) Jones Act negligence; (2) unseaworthiness and (3) maintenance and cure. Defendant objects to certain statements in the exhibits attached to the Declaration of Lewis Brooks, Jr. (“Brooks Decl.”) in opposition to the subject motion. Overruled: 1-3 Sustained: Objections 1-3: Sustained. Inadmissible hearsay. A defendant may move to quash service of summons on the ground the court lacks personal jurisdiction. (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2018

JOHN LOWRY V. PORT SAN LUIS HARBOR DISTRICT

The FAC alleges causes of action for (1) negligence under the Jones Act (47 U.S.C. § 30104); (2) maintenance and cure; (3) unseaworthiness under the Jones Act; (4) unseaworthiness under the general maritime Law (28 U.S.C. § 1333(a)); and (5) negligence under the general maritime Law. (FAC, passim.) Plaintiff alleges that on March 11, 2016, and while employed with the Port, he was injured in a fall while attempting to board a vessel moored at a pier. (FAC, ¶¶ 21, 23.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2018

HERNANDEZ VS HORNBLOWER YACHTS INC

Plaintiff has alleged causes of action which are only available to seamen under the Jones Act (46 U.S.C. § 30104) and General Maritime law. The language of the complaint appears to make out four causes of action: Jones Act negligence, Unseaworthiness, Maintenance and Cure, and negligence under General Maritime Law. The Jones Act provides sea-based employees with the right to sue their employers for injuries/illnesses arising out of their maritime employment. Chandris v. Latsis, (1995) 515 U.S. 347, 354.

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

EDDY MCHENRY VS KATIES SEAFOOD MARKET LLC ET AL

Negligence and Negligence Per Se Pursuant to the Jones Act 1. Employer Plaintiff’s first cause of action is for negligence and negligence per se under the federal Jones Act, which governs certain torts arising at sea. Plaintiff argues Defendant is subject to liability under the Jones Act by virtue of the fact that Defendant was Plaintiff’s employer. (See Ribitzki v. Canmar Reading & Bates, Ltd. Partnership (9th Cir. 1997) 111 F.3d 658, 662.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2018

JOHN LOWRY AND HEATHER LOWRY V. PORT SAN LUIS HARBOR DISTRICT

Lowry’s causes of action against Defendant are: (1) Negligence under the Jones Act; (2) Maintenance and Cure; (3) Unseaworthiness under the Jones Act; (4) Unseaworthiness under the General Maritime Law (28 U.S.C. § 1333(a)); and (5) Negligence under the General Maritime Law. (Krissman Decl., Ex. A, passim.)

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2018

JOHN LOWRY AND HEATHER LOWRY V. PORT SAN LUIS HARBOR DISTRICT

Lowry’s causes of action against Defendant are: (1) Negligence under the Jones Act; (2) Maintenance and Cure; (3) Unseaworthiness under the Jones Act; (4) Unseaworthiness under the General Maritime Law (28 U.S.C. § 1333(a)); and (5) Negligence under the General Maritime Law. (Krissman Decl., Ex. A, passim.)

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2018

HERNANDEZ VS HORNBLOWER YACHTS INC

The Jones Act provides an exception to normal exclusivity rule. Resolution of this issue is appropriately resolved prior to presentation of any liability evidence and is thus appropriate for bifurcation. The Court recognizes that defendant has a summary judgment motion pending on this issue. In ruling on bifurcation, the Court is not pre-judging the merits of the summary judgment motion nor the Jones Act issue.

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

OSBORNE VS KB INTERNATIONAL LLC

This is a Jones Act case arising out of a December 9, 2016 injury to plaintiff aboard the 116' sport fishing vessel m/v Intrepid. The complaint was filed August 9, 2017, and defendants answered October 19, 2017. ROA 1, 11. Plaintiff, who alleges he was in command of the vessel at the time, claims back and neck injuries which he believes will prevent him from working "offshore or aboard a vessel again." The case is scheduled for a CMC on January 12, 2018. ROA 6.

  • Hearing

    Jan 02, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

OSBORNE VS KB INTERNATIONAL LLC

This is a Jones Act case arising out of a December 9, 2016 injury to plaintiff aboard the 116' sport fishing vessel m/v Intrepid. The complaint was filed August 9, 2017, and defendants answered October 19, 2017. ROA 1, 11. Plaintiff, who alleges he was in command of the vessel at the time, claims back and neck injuries which he believes will prevent him from working "offshore or aboard a vessel again." The case is scheduled for a CMC on January 12, 2018. ROA 6.

  • Hearing

    Jan 02, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

DEBRA REES VS. HORNBLOWER FLEET, LLC ET AL

DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT Set for hearing on Thursday, December 7, 2017, Line 8, DEFENDANT HORNBLOWER FLEET, LLC, HORNBLOWER YACHTS, LLC DBA HORNBLOWER CRUISES' DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant Hornblower Yachts, LLC and Hornblower Fleet, LLC's demurrer to the first two causes of action for unseaworthiness and negligence (Jones Act) in the first amended complaint filed by plaintiff Debra Rees is overruled as to both causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2017

DEBRA REES VS. HORNBLOWER FLEET, LLC ET AL

Rees' for unseaworthiness and negligence per the Jones Act. The injury occurred on September 20, 2013 and Ms. Rees filed this action on April 24, 2017. Federal maritime law preempts application of 10 CCR 2695.7 and Insurance Code 11583. If she can do so in good faith, Ms. Rees is given leave to amend to allege facts showing that defendants should be estopped from relying on the statute of limitations. The complaint presently does not allege conduct showing that defendants actively prevented Ms.

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2017

WILLIAMS VS. COLUMBIA YACHTS CORPORATION

Plaintiffs concede they are not pursuing allegations or causes of action, as to Tim Kernan, for unseaworthiness, in rem or in personam; Jones Act negligence; or breach of implied warranties. Defendant SPINLOCK LTD.'S Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Spinlock LTD's Objections to Dwight Ritter's Declaration are SUSTAINED. Objections to Wehr Declaration are SUSTAINED as to 6,7,8,11,14,13,15,33,40. All other objections OVERRULED Objections to Naranjo Declaration are SUSTAINED as to 23, 24.

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

WILLIAMS VS. COLUMBIA YACHTS CORPORATION

Plaintiffs concede they are not pursuing allegations or causes of action, as to Tim Kernan, for unseaworthiness, in rem or in personam; Jones Act negligence; or breach of implied warranties. Defendant SPINLOCK LTD.'S Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Spinlock LTD's Objections to Dwight Ritter's Declaration are SUSTAINED. Objections to Wehr Declaration are SUSTAINED as to 6,7,8,11,14,13,15,33,40. All other objections OVERRULED Objections to Naranjo Declaration are SUSTAINED as to 23, 24.

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

WILLIAMS VS. COLUMBIA YACHTS CORPORATION

Plaintiffs concede they are not pursuing allegations or causes of action, as to Tim Kernan, for unseaworthiness, in rem or in personam; Jones Act negligence; or breach of implied warranties. Defendant SPINLOCK LTD.'S Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Spinlock LTD's Objections to Dwight Ritter's Declaration are SUSTAINED. Objections to Wehr Declaration are SUSTAINED as to 6,7,8,11,14,13,15,33,40. All other objections OVERRULED Objections to Naranjo Declaration are SUSTAINED as to 23, 24.

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

JOSE FIGUEROA VS AMERICAN MARINE CORPORATION

Background Facts Plaintiff, Jose Figueroa filed this action against Defendant, American Marine Corporation for damages under the Jones Act arising out of injuries sustained during an employment-based diving incident. Plaintiff filed his complaint on 3/02/17, and Defendant filed its answer on 5/12/17. 2. Pro Hac Vice On 4/06/17, Plaintiff filed an application to permit Bobby Delise and Alton Hall to appear pro hac vice in the action.

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2017

NATHAN SOANKA VS NCL LTD ET AL

His “seafarers complaint” includes claims for Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, and willful failure to pay maintenance & cure for unearned wages. 2. Petition to Compel Arbitration At this time, Defendants petition the Court for an order compelling the matter into binding arbitration. Defendants provide evidence that Plaintiff, in connection with his employment agreement, signed an arbitration agreement.

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2017

MICHAEL B. HILLEGEIST VS. F/V SUSAN T. INC., A CORPORATION ET AL

Therefore, there is a triable issue of material fact whether the 3-year statute of limitations bars the Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to [email protected] with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2015

JAMES COREY BUSCH VS. JAMES BRADFORD ET AL

Latsis (1995) 515 U.S. 347, 368-the requirement that an employee "contribute to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission." Plaintiffs', however, cannot establish the second element-the requirement of a substantial connection to a vessel in both duration and nature. Plaintiffs' connection to the boat was not substantial because it was recreational in nature. Plaintiffs were not compensated and had regular land-based employment.

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2015

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.