188 F. Supp. 3d 1036
W.D. Wash.2016Background
- Plaintiff Rodwan Sabow worked as a fish processor for American Seafoods Company (ASC) and developed severe back pain in April 2015; he stopped working and has continued medical treatment (including surgery) paid by ASC.
- Sabow filed a standalone federal suit on January 26, 2016 seeking an increase in daily maintenance (from the contract rate $30) to $37.97 based on his actual room-and-board expenses.
- ASC paid maintenance at the $30 contract rate, refused the requested increase, and later filed counterclaims seeking declaratory relief on Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness.
- Sabow moved to dismiss ASC’s counterclaims and to compel increased maintenance retroactive to April 11, 2015 and ongoing at $37.97/day.
- The court found Sabow was entitled to maintenance, adopted a burden-shifting test for the reasonableness of maintenance, and granted dismissal of ASC’s declaratory counterclaims on choice-of-forum grounds.
- The court ordered ASC to pay specified back maintenance (with differing daily rates for April–Oct 2015 and Nov 2015–present) and ongoing maintenance at $37.97/day, denied attorney fees, and directed ASC to send checks directly to Sabow going forward.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ASC’s declaratory counterclaims should be dismissed because Sabow may try maintenance separately and has a choice-of-forum privilege | Sabow argued counterclaims are precluded by a seaman’s right to bring maintenance separately and by the choice-of-forum privilege; allow seaman to choose forum | ASC argued it may seek declaratory relief and there is no authority precluding federal declaratory suits when maintenance filed in federal court | Court dismissed ASC’s counterclaims: choice-of-forum privilege (under §1445(a)) would be thwarted and dismissal appropriate |
| Proper standard and quantum for increased maintenance (amount per day) | Sabow argued his actual expenses ($800 rent then $775 for period, utilities, food) are reasonable and the $30 contract cap cannot bar an individual’s maintenance | ASC relied on contract $30 rate and suggested offsets (advance) and cheaper lodging alternatives | Court adopted a burden-shifting test (Incandela framework), found Sabow made prima facie showing, rejected offset of $2,500 advance, and awarded increased maintenance (specified daily rates) |
| Form/timeliness of maintenance payments (receipt schedule; remittance method) | Sabow sought checks timed so he receives by 1st and 15th and direct payments payable to him (not c/o counsel) and fees incurred from cashing checks | ASC issued checks through counsel after plaintiff retained counsel and argued its practice | Court ordered ASC to send checks directly to Sabow payable to him; declined to set strict receipt deadlines or award cashing-fee damages |
| Recovery of attorney fees for bringing these motions | Sabow requested fees because he had to litigate to obtain maintenance | ASC argued its conduct had reasonable basis | Court denied fees, finding ASC acted with good cause given unsettled law |
Key Cases Cited
- Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2009) ( Rule 12(b)(6) standard and motion-to-dismiss principles)
- Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1962) (maintenance and cure duties of shipowners)
- McAllister v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 357 U.S. 221 (U.S. 1958) (Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims to be tried together)
- Gardiner v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 786 F.2d 943 (9th Cir. 1986) (limitations on contractual reduction of maintenance; collective bargaining vs individual contract)
- Hall v. Noble Drilling, 242 F.3d 582 (5th Cir. 2001) (measuring reasonable maintenance by locale, not strictly shipboard equivalence)
- Incandela v. Am. Dredging Co., 659 F.2d 11 (2d Cir. 1981) (burden-shifting test for maintenance amount: prima facie showing of actual expenditures shifts burden to owner)
- Crooks v. United States, 459 F.2d 631 (9th Cir. 1972) (policy favoring prompt maintenance payments and resolving doubts for seaman)
- Tate v. Am. Tugs, Inc., 634 F.2d 869 (5th Cir. 1981) (seaman need not join maintenance with other claims)