What Law Applies In Indian Seaman’s Suit In U.S. Court?Lauritzen/Rhoditis Factors Require Law of Liberia

Ganpat v. E. Pac. Shipping PTE, Ltd., 2024 WL 1902957 (5th Cir., May 1, 2024).

            This suit was filed by Kholkar Vishveshwar Ganpat (referred to in the opinion as Kholkar)[1] for injuries when employed on M/V STARGATE, a Liberian flagged vessel owned by Larchep Shipping, Inc., a Liberian corporation,[2] and managed by East Pacific Shipping PTE Limited (EPS), a Singaporean corporation.[3] It began when the seaman filed suit against EPS in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana  under the Jones Act and General Maritime Law and contract claims against EPS and subsequently sought an anti-suit injunction against EPS prohibiting EPS from proceeding with its suit against him in a court in India. That matter was previously addressed in Ganpat v. E. Pac. Shipping Pte, Ltd.[4] In that case, a divided panel in an opinion by Judge Ho upheld the anti-suit injunction against EPS.

            With EPS enjoined from proceeding in its suit in India, the seaman could continue with his Jones Act and General Maritime Law suit against EPS in the Eastern District of Louisiana.  He asserts EPS was the owner/operator of the vessel and borrowing employer and also brought a contractual claim for disability benefits under a collective bargaining agreement between the International Transport Workers' Federation and EPS.[5] Five Motions for Summary Judgment were filed on the issue of what law applied: U.S., Liberian, Indian, or Singaporean.[6] Judge Susie Morgan held that U.S. law applied which EPS appealed.[7]

            Judge Engelhardt wrote for the unanimous panel which included Judged Dennis and Oldham.[8] The court lists the factors enumerated by the Supreme Court in Lauritzen/Rhoditis[9]: “(1) the place of the wrongful act; (2) the law of the flag; (3) the allegiance or domicile of the injured worker; (4) the allegiance of the defendant shipowner; (5) the place of the contract; (6) the inaccessibility of the foreign forum; (7) the law of the forum; and (8) the shipowner's base of operations.”[10] These factors were developed involving vessels traversing the high seas and the waters of many nations. Though these factors were extended to non-traditional maritime activity such as offshore drilling operations and non-traditional maritime activities, the activities in which the claimant engaged here are traditional maritime shipping from which the Lauritzen/Rhoditis factors evolved.[11]

            In applying these factors, the place of the wrongful act (first factor) is on minimal importance.[12] The law of the flag along with the allegiance of the defendant and the vessel owner’s base of operations are more important (the second, fourth and eighth factors combined).[13] Similarly, the nationality of the claimant (third factor) seaman is a to be considered.[14] With respect to the fifth factor (the place of the contract),it is less of an issue if the claim is one in tort.[15] The law of the forum, the seventh factor, is given little weight.[16]

            Applying these factors to the present case, none involve the United States.[17] What law applies? As the employment contract adopts the law of Liberia, that law applies to the maritime tort and contract claims but not the intentional tort claim concerning EPS’s Indian law suit. Summary Judgment applying U.S. law was reversed. The suit was remanded for further proceedings.

[1] A citizen of India; Ganpat, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10629 at *1.

[2] Larchep is not a party to this suit. Id. at *2.

[3] Id. This litigation began when the seaman filed suit in the U.S. District Court.

[4] 66 F.4th 578 (5th Cir. 2023).

[5] Id. at *3. This is part of his "Seafarer's Employment Agreement" with Ventnor Navigation, Inc., a Liberian company, which is not a party to the suit.

[6] See Kholkar Vishveshwar Ganpat v. E. Pac. Shipping PTE, Ltd., 642 F. Supp. 3d 524, 528 (E.D. La. 2022).

[7] It is unclear if this was an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(3).

[8] 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10629 at *1

[9] Hellenic Lines Ltd. v. Rhoditis, 398 U.S. 306 (1970)

[10] 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10629 at *5.

[11] Id. at *8

[12] Id. at *9.

[13] Id. at *9-10.

[14] Id. at * 12-13

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Id. at *13-14.