No Juries in Admiralty / Rule 11 Sanctions Only in Extraordinary Circumstances

Seemann v. Coastal Envtl. Group, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86608

By: Kennard Davis

 Background Johnny Seemann sustained injuries from a slip and fall while working on a self-propelled barge leased by his employer, Coastal Environmental Group, Inc. (“Coastal”) and owned by GSI Disaster Services, Inc. (“GSI”). He filed a lawsuit in federal court in the Eastern District of New York for maintenance and cure under general maritime law, and a Jones Act negligence claim against Coastal.Coastal filed a motion pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(c) to add GSI as a third party liable for damages. GSI responded to Coastal’s TPC by filing a motion for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and sanctions against Coastal’s counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 accusing Coastal’s counsel of filing a frivolous claim.The court made two determinations: (1) the court dismissed Coastal’s TPC, because to invoke Fed. R. Civ. P 14(c) the claim must be under general admiralty jurisdiction. The plaintiff did not file under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(h) in the original petition because the totality of the circumstance indicated that the plaintiff did not intend to file under admiralty law. (2) The court denied GSI’s motion for sanctions because GSI asserted a repetitive argument that did not prove that Coastal’s claim lacked legal merit. The court noted two alternatives to joining GSI to the lawsuit. Seemann could amend the original petition to add GSI as a defendant, or Coastal could move to add GSI as a party to the lawsuit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a). Lastly, the court warned GSI about filing unnecessary Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 motions. Rule 14 (c), Coastal’s Impleader A party must file a claim under admiralty jurisdiction to create a direct relationship between the plaintiff and the third party defendant in a Rule 14(c) motion. Claims under admiralty jurisdiction did not allow jury trials. However, the plaintiff demanded a jury trial in the original petition without expressly designating the lawsuit’s jurisdiction. The court concluded from the totality of these circumstances that the plaintiff intended to file under non-admiralty jurisdiction. Thus, the court dismissed Coastal’s TPC finding Coastal could not invoke the special rules of admiralty joinder under Rule 14(c).The court mentioned that Coastal could file another motion to join GSI under Rule 14(a). But Coastal filing under Rule 14(a) against GSI will only create a benefit in favor of Coastal. Rule 11 ClaimGSI asserted the same argument in both its motion for sanctions and motion for dismissal. GSI denied liability for both claims because they are a bareboat charterer and ice on the boat did not make them liable. The court denied their sanctions because GSI disagreeing with their liability in the lawsuit did not make the claims frivolous. The court warned GSI that Rule 11 motions are to be used “sparingly and only in extraordinary circumstances.”In conclusion, the court dismissed Coastal’s Rule 14(c) TPC because the lawsuit was not filed pursuant admiralty jurisdiction; and denied GSI motion for sanctions because Coastal’s TPC had legal merit.