Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Phillips v. Hunter Marine Transport

July 9, 2010

FORREST W. PHILLIPS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
HUNTER MARINE TRANSPORT, INC., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Reagan United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

REAGAN, District Judge

A. Introduction

Alleging that he sustained injuries while working on the marine vessel "L.R. Chapman" in April 2009, relief mate Forrest Phillips sued his employer -- Hunter Marine Transport, Inc. ("Hunter") under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 30101-06 (count I), and general maritime law (counts II and III). Hunter answered the complaint in April 2010 and included a two-count counterclaim against Phillips. That counterclaim lies at the heart of the matter now before this Court.

The counterclaim alleges that Phillips materially misrepresented facts and committed fraud in concealing from Hunter prior medical problems with his arm, shoulder and neck, in failing to list these conditions on a "Boarding and Departure Report" on March 14, 2009, in falsely reporting that the injuries were sustained while on the tow of the L.R. Chapman on April 14, 2009, and in accepting maintenance and cure, wage supplements and other payments totaling more than $93,000 between May 1, 2009 and March 4, 2010.

The Court enjoys subject matter jurisdiction over Phillips' complaint and Hunter's counterclaim -- the former via the federal question and admiralty/maritime statutes (28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1333)*fn1 and the latter via the federal diversity statute (28 U.S.C. § 1332). The case currently is set for bench trial (as to Phillips' complaint) commencing April 11, 2011. A jury has been demanded as to Hunter's counterclaim (see Doc. 16, p. 1 & 4).

Now before the Court, fully briefed , is Phillips' motion to dismiss Hunter's counterclaim for failure to plead allegations with sufficient particularity. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the motion.

B. Analysis

The Jones Act creates a federal negligence remedy for seamen injured in the course of their employment. Howard v. Southern Illinois Riverboat Casino Cruises, Inc., 364 F.3d 854, 855 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 942 (2004); 46 U.S.C. App. § 688(a). Congress provided seamen with "heightened legal protection," in recognition of their exposure to "perils of the sea." Id., 364 F.3d at 856, quoting Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 368 (1995).

Forrest Phillips asserts a claim based on Jones Act negligence, plus a claim for unseaworthiness under general maritime law and a claim for maintenance and cure.

A "Jones Act claim is an in personam action for a seaman who suffers injury in the course of employment due to negligence of his employer, the vessel owner, or crew members."Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438, 441 (2001). Unseaworthiness is a claim under general maritime law "based on the vessel owner's duty to ensure that the vessel is reasonably fit to be at sea," and a maintenance and cure claim "concerns the vessel owner's obligation to provide food, lodging, and medical services to a seaman injured while serving the ship." Id.

Hunter's counterclaim is divided into dual counts, one captioned "Material Misrepresentation" and the other captioned "Fraud" (Doc. 16, pp. 4-8). Both counts seek to recover from Phillips all payments made to him (for maintenance, cure, wage supplements, expenses, etc.) on the ground that he concealed a prior medical problem, misrepresented material facts in reporting an injury he claimed to have sustained on the tow of the L.R. Chapman, and knowingly accepting payments to which he was not entitled.

Both counts of the counterclaim allege fraudulent conduct by Phillips, and Phillips seeks to dismiss them for failure to plead that fraud with sufficient particularity. The motion cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) (see Doc. 19, p. 1).

Rule 12(b)(6) governs motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Such dismissal is merited if the complaint (or counterclaim) does not plead sufficient factual matter which, if accepted as true, states a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, -- U.S. --, 129 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.