The United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana Dismisses Petition for Damages Asserting Claims Under the Jones Act and General Maritime Law of Unseaworthiness For Non Conveniens

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana Dismisses Petition for Damages Asserting Claims Under the Jones Act and General Maritime Law of Unseaworthiness For Non Conveniens  

Private Interest Factors Hold No Weight in light of Atlantic Marine Decision

By: Lindsey Ajubita

Edited By: Max Schellenberg

Layson v. Baffin Invs., Ltd., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124962 (M.D. La. Sept. 18, 2015). Additional citations West Law and for PacerFollowing the recent Supreme Court modification of the forum non conveniens analysis as applied to forum selection clauses, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana held the forum selection clauses referring to litigation arising out of the the death of a seaman, Fildion Layson, to the Philippines were valid and enforceable. On these grounds, the court granted the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Based on forum non conveniens and thereafter dismissed the matter without prejudice.Mr. Layson, signed a Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (“POEA”) Contract with his employer, Intership Navigation, Inc. (“Intership”), to work aboard the M/V FEDERAL YOSHINO. The vessel was owned and operated by defendant Baffin Investments, Ltd. (“Baffin”) and documented under the flag of the Marshall Islands. Pursuant to the POEA Contract and a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between the Associated Marine Officers’ and Seaman’s Union of the Philippines (“AMOSUP”) and Intership’s manning agent, disputes and claims arising from his employment including claims for damages were to be resolved by arbitration.After Mr. Layson was fatally wounded aboard the vessel, his wife entered into a settlement agreement with AMOSUP for $108, 663.79. The agreement contained a Release of All Rights and required any dispute arising from the settlement to be referred to a court in the Philippines. While finalizing the settlement, an NLRC arbiter verified that Mrs. Layson understood the content and effects of the settlement agreement and that she freely agreed to the terms. Subsequently, Mrs. Layson filed a Petition of Damages in Louisiana State Court against Intership and Baffin for their alleged negligence under the Jones Acts and breach of the warranty of seaworthiness. Additionally, Mrs. Layson alleged that she was defrauded by the defendants into signing the settlement agreement that contained the Release of All Rights. After removal to federal court pursuant to the New York Convention on Foreign Arbitral Awards, the defendants sought dismissal of suit under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.In assessing the validity of the forum selection clauses contained in the POEA Contract and the CBA, the court rejected Mrs. Layson’s argument that enforcing the forum selection clauses would contravene Louisiana’s public policy. The court reasoned that strong federal policy under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement Foreign Arbitral Awards is in favor of enforcing international arbitration agreements, especially as applied to seamen’s employment contracts. This interest outweighs Louisiana’s public policy against forum selection clauses contained in employment contracts. The court chose not to invalidate the forum selection clause in the Release of all rights for Mrs. Layson only alleged fraud pertaining to the entirety of the settlement agreement and, therefore, failed to prove that the forum selection clause itself was procured through fraud. On these grounds, the court found that the forum selection clauses contained in the CBA, POEA Contract, and settlement agreement were valid.In deciding whether the forum selection clauses were enforceable, the court found the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Asignacion v. Rickmers Genoa Schiffahrts did not provide support for Mrs. Layson’s argument that the Philippines is inadequate and unavailable forum. Not only did Mrs. Layson submit to the jurisdiction of the NLRC and receive funds in accordance with her settlement agreement, she also maintains the ability to challenge the validity of the settlement under Philippine law. Because the substantive laws of the Philippine forum are presumed to be adequate and Layson has not met her burden of proof to the contrary, the court subsequently found that the Philippines was an adequate and available form.Continuing the forum non conveniens analysis, the court followed the United States Supreme Court decision in Atlantic Marine, which held that private interest factors carry no weight in the forum non conveniens analysis. The court noted that the Philippines has a strong interest in resolving matters in the Philippines when issues arise about the monitoring of overseas employment of Filipinos. Additionally, the Philippines public interest is especially heightened in a scenario where a party alleges fraud in connection with a settlement agreement negotiated and entered into by parties in the Philippines and approved by the NLRC. Because the forum selection clauses were not invalidated, the Philippines is an adequate and available forum and the public interest factors way in favor of dismissal on the grounds of forum non conveniens. As such, the court granted the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss without prejudice.