New Jones Act Case From Fouth Circuit - Holloway v. Pagan River Dockside Seafood

New Jones Act case from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.  While the Jones Act claim is what prompted this post, it is actually more of a civil procedure case that goes to the heart of federal court jurisdiction, so Civ Pro wonks- take heed.

The case is Holloway v. Pagan River Dockside Seafood, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3897 and the original opinion can be found here.

Facts:  Plaintiff had an "oral" contract to "lease" a boat from Defendant who then paid him for his catch of oysters or crabs and deducted a "fee" for the lease payment.  While unloading his catch, he was injured by a conveyor belt.  He brought suit as a Jones Act seaman against his "employer."

The trial court granted a motion to dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiciton under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).  The notional "employer" argued that the Plaintiff had not satisfied the statutory requirement of proof that he was a Jones Act seaman in their employ.  The trial judge granted the motion and Plaintiff appealed.

This case turns on the difference between dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, under 12(b)(1), and dismissal for failure to state a claim, under 12(b)(6). 

The Fourth Circuit thought everybody got it wrong: 

The parties, and indeed the district court, have quite blurred the fundamental difference between a Rule 12(b)(1) motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim, failing to recognize the distinction between the Rules.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ouch.  Bench slap.

The opinion goes on to explain that jurisdiction is different than having a defective complaint.  Plaintiff's failure to allege facts that prove his statutory cause of action, i.e. Jones Act seaman status, should be resolve by a motion challenging the sufficiency of the complaint; i.e. 12(b)(6) - failure ot state a claim, 12(c) - judgment on pleadings, or 56 - summary judgment; and not on jurisdictional grounds.

Jones Act suits are claims that the federal courts have the power to hear.  Ergo, the courts have jurisdiction to hear them.  If plaintiffs cannot prove they are entitled to relief under the Jones Act, then defendants can file an appropriate motion, or if there are contested facts at issue, the court must try them.

Comments

[Lulaine]

I agree with the Fourth Circuit, if a plaintiff cannot bring a claim to a federal court which should have jurisdiction then that sends a troubling message to others who might have a similar claim. The trial court which ruled there was no jurisdiction had in my opinion a contradictory opinion that the plaintiff did not state a claim. It has to be either there is no jurisdiction or the failure to state a claim.