Grant v. Entertainment Cruises
Civil Action No. 2017-1159
| D.D.C. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- Tamea Grant, a pro se plaintiff, worked as a deckhand on Spirit Cruises vessels and alleges head and elbow injuries from the captain’s negligence during an April 2015 harbor cruise.
- Grant filed two essentially identical suits (one against Spirit Cruises, one against parent Entertainment Cruises); the cases were removed to federal court and consolidated.
- Her Amended Complaint pleaded several D.C. Code claims and included an unclear reference to the Jones Act; the court previously dismissed all claims except a D.C. negligent safe-place-of-employment count, and dismissed the Jones Act claim without prejudice, allowing amendment.
- Grant moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint expressly pleading a Jones Act (46 U.S.C. § 30104) negligence claim based on the April 15 cruise.
- Defendants opposed amendment as unnecessary or deficient; the court applied Rule 15(a) standards and the futility inquiry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to amend to add a Jones Act claim should be granted | Grant seeks to plead Jones Act negligence based on her seaman status and alleged on-vessel injury | Defendants argue the proposed Jones Act count was previously insufficient and could still be deficient | Court granted leave to amend; Second Amended Complaint deemed filed |
| Whether Grant qualifies as a "seaman" for Jones Act purposes | Grant worked as a deckhand contributing to vessel function; thus she is a seaman | Defendants did not contest seaman status here | Court found no dispute on seaman status given deckhand role |
| Whether the vessel is a "vessel in navigation" for Jones Act application | Grant alleges injuries occurred aboard a harbor cruise vessel in service as a vessel in navigation | Defendants implicitly challenge sufficiency but did not argue a cruise vessel is outside Jones Act protection | Court noted vessel-in-navigation is typically a jury fact question and that harbor cruises can qualify; found pleading adequate to survive dismissal |
| Whether amendment would be futile or prejudicial | Grant contends amended pleading cures prior defects and is duplicative of negligence claim | Defendants assert prior deficiencies justify denial or that duplicative federal count is unnecessary | Court concluded amendment is not futile, causes no undue prejudice, and allowed the Jones Act count (noting some defenses may differ) |
Key Cases Cited
- Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (statutory cause of action for negligence under Jones Act)
- McDermott Int’l, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337 (definition of “seaman” and employment-related connection to a vessel)
- Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (vessel-in-navigation inquiry is fact-intensive and normally for the jury)
- Stewart v. Dutra Constr. Co., 543 U.S. 481 (a watercraft need not be in motion to qualify as a vessel)
- Harbor Tug & Barge Co. v. Papai, 520 U.S. 548 (employee duties must contribute to vessel function for seaman status)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (Rule 15(a) factors governing leave to amend)
- Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Circuit: denying leave to amend is abuse of discretion absent sufficient reason)