Seemann v. Coastal Environmental Group, Inc.
219 F. Supp. 3d 362
E.D.N.Y2016Background
- Plaintiff Johnny Seemann, a seaman on the self-propelled barge MV Army I, sued Coastal Environmental Group, Inc. (Coastal) under the Jones Act and general maritime law for injuries after slipping on ice/snow on the barge deck on January 24, 2014.
- Coastal had previously impleaded owner GSI Disaster Services, Inc. (GSI) under Rule 14(c); that third-party complaint was dismissed. Plaintiff then moved under Rule 15 to amend his complaint to add GSI as a defendant ten days after the dismissal, asserting the same claims against GSI as against Coastal.
- Plaintiff alleges the deck was not de-iced or provided with non-skid material despite his requests; he underwent surgery and remained unfit for duty as of the proposed amended complaint.
- GSI opposed the motion; the court treated GSI’s brief as an interested non-party filing and Coastal did not oppose the amendment motion.
- The court evaluated the Rule 15 factors (delay, bad faith, prejudice, futility) and Rule 12(b)(6)/Twombly/Iqbal standards, accepting allegations in the proposed amended complaint as true for the motion-to-amend analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether adding a Jones Act negligence claim against GSI is permissible | Add GSI as Jones Act employer-defendant; justice requires amendment | GSI argues (via contract/charter) it is not liable (ownership/charter distinctions) | Denied — futile because Jones Act liability is limited to the plaintiff’s employer and PAC alleges Coastal, not GSI, employed plaintiff |
| Whether an unseaworthiness claim against GSI may be added | Vessel’s icy deck rendered it unseaworthy; allegation is plausible | GSI contends ice on deck does not necessarily make vessel unseaworthy and points to charter contract (court did not consider contract) | Granted — sufficient factual allegations that ice/snow could render vessel unseaworthy; not futile at pleading stage |
| Whether a maintenance and cure claim can be asserted against GSI | Entitled to maintenance and cure as injured seaman from vessel owner | GSI relies on contract/charter and lack of employer status | Denied — maintenance and cure liability is tied to the employer/owner-pro-hac-vice relationship; PAC alleges Coastal employed plaintiff, so claim against GSI futile |
| Whether plaintiff’s delay or bad faith/prejudice bars amendment | Motion filed promptly after third-party dismissal; discovery stayed | GSI implied prejudice but did not show specific prejudice | Court found no bad faith, undue delay, or prejudice; delay not a basis to deny amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Diebold v. Moore-McCormack Bulk Transp. Lines, Inc., 805 F.2d 55 (2d Cir. 1986) (Jones Act negligence standard; employer negligence need only play any part)
- Oxley v. City of New York, 923 F.2d 22 (2d Cir. 1991) (ice on deck can present triable unseaworthiness issue)
- Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1960) (shipowner strict liability for unseaworthiness; standard of reasonable fitness)
- Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1962) (maintenance and cure is incident to employment until maximum medical recovery)
- Sologub v. City of New York, 202 F.3d 175 (2d Cir. 2000) (Jones Act permits suit only against employer)
- Karvelis v. Constellation Lines S.A., 806 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1986) (only an employer can be liable under the Jones Act)
- Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2009) (post-Twombly pleading principles; legal conclusions not entitled to assumption of truth)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard requiring plausible claim on its face)
- Williams v. Citigroup Inc., 659 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 2011) (strong preference for resolving disputes on the merits)