U.S. 6th Circuit Affirms Jones Act Dismissal Conclusory Allegations Without Facts Insufficient to Survive Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)

Allen v. NCL Am. LLC, No. 17-4198, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 18682, 2018 WL 3359206 (6th Cir. July 10, 2018)

By: Armando J. Troche Dávila

Allen [Plaintiff] filed this complaint after he sustained a disabling injury by striking his knee multiple times  while employed as a corrections officer by NCL Am, LLC [Defendant] on its cruise vessel M/S PRIDE OF AMERICA. The case at hand focuses on the necessary requirements to survive a motion to dismiss  pursuant to Rule 12(b)6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for:  (1) negligence under the Jones Act, and (2) unseaworthiness under general maritime law. Both of these counts were dismissed by the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on the basis of insufficient facts to sustain the allegations of negligence and unseaworthiness, and Plaintiff appealed. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.In order for negligence under the Jones Act to survive a motion to dismiss, “direct or inferential factual allegations concerning all of the material elements of this type this claim must be admitted. See Mezinbov v. K Allen, 411 F.3d at 716 (6th Cir. 2004). Information such as whether anyone else was injured, or whether the instrumentality was defective, or whether there was any instruction to perform his actions in an unsafe manner were not brought before the court. Plaintiff had only  made conclusory allegations. Conclusory allegations were not enough for this claim to survive a motion to dismiss. Furthermore, “...a presumption of negligence does not arise upon mere evidence of an injury sustained.” Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. v. South Fork Coal Co., 139 F. 528, 533 (6th Cir. 1905).If an unseaworthiness claim under general maritime law is to survive a motion to dismiss a plaintiff must introduce facts, whether direct or inferential, that tie in to all the material elements of an unseaworthiness claim. See Mezibov, 411 F.3d at 716. In this case, Plaintiff alleged that his job “...required [him] to carry a large, hard-to-handle[,] and excessively heavy tub of silverware...and lift it onto an elevated steel transfer table, within strict and unrealistic time constraints.” However, no  facts supporting Plaintiff’s “unrealistic time constraints” were submitted. He had also not shown whether he was required to move it by himself or with assistance, or whether he had asked for help. There were also no allegations of any instructions requiring him to lift the tub in an unsafe way.Judge Moore dissented from the majority opinion, by stating that the majority ignored Plaintiff’s arguments of how he was not trained, nor supervised during the course of his job. Judge Moore believed that Plaintiff’s Jones Act claim was properly pleaded by showing an “...unsafe working environment, [failure] to train, and [failure] to supervise…” The dissent would have reversed the dismissal of the unseaworthiness claim due to Plaintiff’s facts suggesting instructions to “...use unsafe work meth