• Decrease 

font size
  • Reset 

font size to default
  • Increase 

font size
HOT NEWS
Home Jones Act Defenses
Defenses
PDF Print E-mail
Share
Jones Act - Defenses
Saturday, 23 May 2009 00:41

***** PRESS RELEASE****

President Obama Initiated a Sweeping Reversal of the Deterioration of State Common Law Rights and Provided a Victory in the Legal Arena of Preemption for All Working Men and Women

From now on, the regulatory preemption of state common law will be strictly limited. Even regulations issued within the past 10 years will have to be reviewed and in some cases amended.

Today, President Obama issued a Directive to the Heads of all Executive Branch Departments and Agencies stating it is the policy of his Administration that "preemption of State law by executive departments and agencies should be undertaken only with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the States and with a sufficient legal basis for preemption." Preemption of state common law will no longer be presumed or asserted by regulatory agencies absent "explicit preemption by Congress or an otherwise sufficient basis under applicable legal principles."

In order to ensure that executive departments and agencies include statements of preemption in regulations only when such statements have a sufficient legal basis, the President's directive provides that:

"1. Heads of departments and agencies should not include in regulatory preambles statements that the department or agency intends to preempt State law through the regulation except where preemption provisions are also included in the codified regulation.

2. Heads of departments and agencies should not include preemption provisions in codified regulations except where such provisions would be justified under legal principles governing preemption...;

3. Heads of departments and agencies should review regulations issued within the past 10 years that contain statements in regulatory preambles or codified provisions intended by the department or agency to preempt State law, in order to decide whether such statements or provisions are justified under applicable legal principles governing preemption. Where the head of a department or agency determines that a regulatory statement of preemption or codified regulatory provision cannot be so justified, the head of that department or agency should initiate appropriate action, which may include amendment of the relevant regulation.";

The effect of President Obama's directive is enormous. For the last 10 to 15 years there has been a deliberate movement towards undermining state law negligence and product liability claims by courts all across the United States. This has been accomplished by taking the position that, if there was a federal regulation touching or concerning an item, then the item was "pre-empted" from a state common law claim of negligence or products liability and, therefore, could not be litigated. This is huge as drug companies, car manufacturers, child seat manufacturers, cigarette companies, medical device manufacturers, seat belt manufacturers and on and on all would always rely on "pre-emption" as a defense. This is true even though there was usually no real in depth analysis done by the federal entities charged with determining whether the products at issue were defective or not. For instance, if the FDA said a drug's warnings complied with the FDA requirements of that drug, then no one could sue under a state claim alleging inadequate warnings.

This represents a large victory as a result of the hard work of the American Association for Justice.

Gordon & Elias, LLP, represents clients in all aspects of personal injury and wrongful death. They are a boutique law firm with a nationwide practice focusing on Jones Act Claims (http://www.offshoreinjuries.com), FELA claims (http://www.gordon-elias.com) and a Nationwide practice in Truck Accident Litigation (http://www.truckaccidentlaw.org). Gordon & Elias, L.L.P., was formed in 2000. Attorneys Steve Gordon and R. Todd Elias bring over 39 years of combined experience to the representation of their clients. The firm has the experience and resources to pursue recovery from large corporate defendants and/or their insurers.




Last Updated on Tuesday, 20 October 2009 03:53
 
PDF Print E-mail
Share
Jones Act - Defenses
Thursday, 21 May 2009 16:08
Case Name: Bobby Kirk v Noble Drilling (U.S.), Inc.
Date of Judgment: 1st April 2009
Court: U.S.D.C. - S.D. Mississippi
Judge: District Judge Starrett
Citation: 2009 WL 910853 (S.D.Miss.)

Background: The plaintiff, Bobby Kirk ("Employee") was hired by the defendant, Noble Drilling, Inc. ("Employer").  Employee worked on a rig, the Jimmy Puckett. He asserted that the rig was a "vessel" and he was a "seaman" within the Jones Act meaning and general maritime law.

 

Last Updated on Tuesday, 20 October 2009 03:58
Read more...
 
PDF Print E-mail
Share
Jones Act - Defenses
Thursday, 21 May 2009 15:23
Case Name: Miguel Calderon v Reederei Claus-Peter Offen GMBH & Co.
Date of Judgment: 27th April 2009
Court: U.S.D.C. - S.D. Florida
Judge: Magistrate Judge Seltzer
Citation: 2009 WL 1125027 (S.D.Fla.)

Background:

Plaintiff, Miguel Calderon ("Longshoreman") brought this claim under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act ("LHWCA"). He sought to recover for physical injuries allegedly sustained while working aboard the defendant's, Reederei Claus-Peter Offen GMBH & Co. ("employer") vessel.

 

Last Updated on Tuesday, 20 October 2009 04:12
Read more...
 
PDF Print E-mail
Share
Jones Act - Defenses
Tuesday, 19 May 2009 20:48
Case Name: Azeem Modak v Alaris Companies, LLC
Date of Judgment: 17th April 2009
Court: U.S.D.C. - N.D. California
Judge: District Judge Wilken
Citation: 2009 WL 1035485 (N.D.Cal.)

Background:  Plaintiff, Azeem Modak ("Seaman") worked as a crew member aboard the vessel Frontier Discoverer. The defendants, Alaris Companies ("Employer") and Frontier ("Owner") operated the vessel.  Seaman alleged that in October 2007 he suffered physical injuries while working aboard the vessel.

Employer is a U.S.-based company in the business of providing ship management, maritime staffing, vessel crewing and other services to customers in the maritime industry. Its offices are located in California.  Owner is a Norwegian company who supplies on- and off-shore drilling and production services for customers in the oil industry. Frontier maintains offices in Texas.

Under the Jones Act, Seaman filed suit against employer and owner in the Northern District of California. As well, he filed suit under general maritime law, for unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure.

Employer and owner raised a 12(b)(3) motion, stating that venue in the Northern District of California was improper. Seaman asserted jurisdiction under the Jones Act and general maritime law, and maintained that the venue was proper.

Issue:  Whether the venue in the Northern District of California was improper.

Held:

The Court stated that employer and owner's 12(b)(3) motion for improper venue was inappropriate. Instead, a general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), would apply to seaman's Jones Act claim.

A recent Supreme Court decision supported this Court's use of the general venue statute. The decision affirmed that a seaman's Jones Act claim could be maintained under the general venue statute. Pursuant to this, the employer and owner could be sued in any district in which they transacted business.

However, in this case the owner had no contacts or transactions in the Northern District of California. Therefore, it was inappropriate for the case to be heard there.

The Court transferred this action. No dismissal was given, as the seaman's complaint stated a claim which, if proved, would entitle him to justice.  The case will be transferred to any district in which it properly could have been brought. Thus, the Southern District of Texas received the case.

Significance:

The Jones Act provides for a seaman who suffers injury in the course of employment due to negligence of his employer, the vessel owner, or crew.  

Until recently, the Jones Act contained an independent venue provision that allowed venue only "in the judicial district in which the employer resides or the employer's principal office is located."

This provision is being repealed so that an action may be brought wherever the seaman's employer or owner does business.  It is necessary that the employer or owner has sufficient contacts or business conducted within the venue.  

Steve Gordon

http://www.offshoreinjuries.com

 

Last Updated on Monday, 19 October 2009 20:23
 
PDF Print E-mail
Share
Jones Act - Defenses
Tuesday, 19 May 2009 20:40
Case Name: Charles R. Luckey v Moncla Marine Operations, L.L.C.
Date of Judgment: 7th April 2009
Court: U.S.D.C. - E.D. Louisiana.
Judge: District Judge Berrigan
Citation: 2009 WL 960145 (E.D.La.)

Background: The plaintiff, Charles R. Luckey ("Seaman") filed a motion to sever and expedite the trial of his maintenance and cure claim against the defendant, Moncla Marine Operations ("Employer").

 

 

Last Updated on Tuesday, 20 October 2009 04:21
Read more...
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 2

Share it!

Translate This Site

English Arabic Bulgarian Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Traditional) Croatian Czech Danish Dutch Finnish French German Greek Hindi Italian Japanese Korean Norwegian Polish Portuguese Romanian Russian Spanish Swedish Catalan Filipino Hebrew Indonesian Latvian Lithuanian Serbian Slovak Slovenian Ukrainian Vietnamese Albanian Estonian Galician Hungarian Maltese Thai Turkish