BUTTS v. ALN GROUP, LLC
512 F.Supp.3d 1301
S.D. Fla.2021Background
- Plaintiff Stephanie Butts was hired May 1, 2019 as a full‑time chef aboard the yacht M/Y Revive and alleges she later quit due to Defendant David Allen’s abusive conduct but returned after assurances of professionalism.
- Defendants provided a one‑way ticket to Cap Cana and a letter identifying Butts as crew; she rejoined the vessel on September 25, 2019.
- On Sept. 26, 2019, Allen allegedly, while intoxicated or drug‑impaired, recklessly piloted the tender, attempted to swamp a local fishing vessel, ordered Butts below, and caused her to be thrown about, resulting in a disc herniation and nerve root entrapment.
- Butts alleges Allen refused to let her disembark for medical care, punched her, fired her, and withheld her passport; she fled and the crew letter was allegedly lost.
- Butts sued for Jones Act negligence, maintenance and cure, unseaworthiness, and false imprisonment; Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing Butts was a guest/romantic partner, not a seaman, and that the pleading was deficient.
- The court denied the motion: it treated the seaman/jurisdiction dispute as implicating merits (so not resolvable on a 12(b)(1) factual attack), declined to convert to summary judgment, and found Butts’s pleadings sufficient at this stage to survive 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Seaman status / subject‑matter jurisdiction | Butts alleges she was hired full‑time as the vessel’s chef, worked for salary, provisioned and helped hire crew—sufficient to be a seaman. | Allen/ALN say she was a guest and romantic partner, not crew, so she is not a seaman and federal jurisdiction under the Jones Act is lacking. | Court treated dispute as merits (12(b)(6)/summary judgment issue), declined to convert to summary judgment, and found allegations sufficient to plead seaman status at this stage. |
| Shotgun pleading | Complaint adequately pleads claims with factual allegations. | Defendants label complaint a shotgun pleading. | Court rejected the shotgun‑pleading argument. |
| Single employer under Jones Act | Butts may plead alternative theories as to employer liability. | Defendants argue only one employer can be sued under Jones Act. | Court allowed alternative pleading at this stage; Cosmopolitan does not bar pleading alternatives now. |
| Maintenance and cure sufficiency | Butts alleges injury during employment, continuing losses, and that defendants refused maintenance and cure. | Defendants argue lack of factual support, no showing of maximum cure, and uncertainty who is liable. | Court applied the liberal maintenance and cure standard and found allegations adequate to state a claim. |
| False imprisonment as maritime tort | Butts alleges she was confined in tender, detained on vessel, passport withheld, and physically assaulted when seeking to leave. | Defendants say false imprisonment is not a Jones Act claim and that Butts voluntarily entered cabin. | Court held false imprisonment is cognizable under general maritime law and that the allegations plausibly state the tort. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (1995) (two‑element test for seaman status: service contributes to vessel’s mission and a substantial connection to a vessel in navigation)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a claim plausible on its face)
- Lawrence v. Dunbar, 919 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir. 1990) (distinction between facial and factual 12(b)(1) attacks)
- Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1981) (limits on dismissing for lack of jurisdiction where merits implicated)
- McElmurray v. Consolidated Government of Augusta‑Richmond County, 501 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2007) (facial vs. factual jurisdictional attacks)
- Holloway v. Pagan River Dockside Seafood, Inc., 669 F.3d 448 (4th Cir. 2012) (disputes over seaman status implicate merits and are inappropriate for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction)
- Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v. McAllister, 337 U.S. 783 (1949) (only one employer may be liable under the Jones Act, informing pleading strategy)
- Magluta v. Samples, 375 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2004) (standard that dismissal under 12(b)(6) is improper unless no set of facts could entitle plaintiff to relief)
- Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2012) (on accepting factual allegations and favorable inferences at the pleading stage)