FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAFAEL AGUILERA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 07-35148

ALASKA JURIS F/V, O.N. 569276, D.C. No. Defendant,  CV-05-01902-JLR

and OPINION

FISHING COMPANY OF ALASKA, INC;

et al.,

Defendants-Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 9, 2008*

Seattle, Washington

Filed August 4, 2008

Before: Richard R. Clifton and N. Randy Smith,

Circuit Judges, and Brian E. Sandoval,** District Judge.

Opinion by Judge N. Randy Smith

*The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

**The Honorable Brian E. Sandoval, United States District Judge for

the District of Nevada, sitting by designation. 

9899
COUNSEL

John W. Merriam, Seattle, Washington, counsel for the appellant. 

Michael A. Barcott, Seattle, Washington, counsel for the

appellees. 

OPINION

N. RANDY SMITH, Circuit Judge: 

We hold that maintenance and cure payments are subject to

withholding for child support obligations, so long as those

payments constitute income under relevant state law. The district court therefore correctly held that Rafael Aguilera’s

maintenance and cure payments are subject to withholding

pursuant to a Texas child support order. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

I.

Aguilera was injured on May 1, 2004, while working

onboard the F/T Alaska Juris, a factory trawler fishing vessel.

At the time of his injury, Aguilera was employed by the Fishing Company of Alaska (“FCA”). As a result of his injury,

FCA began paying Aguilera maintenance and cure in the

amount of $20 per day. Shortly thereafter, FCA began withholding $10 per day from those payments in satisfaction of a

child support order that FCA received from the state of Texas

(“Order”). The Order stated that FCA was “required by law”

to deduct $241 per month from Aguilera’s “income.”

9902 AGUILERA v. FISHING COMPANY OF ALASKA
Aguilera filed a complaint against FCA for additional

maintenance and cure payments. Aguilera alleged that he was

entitled to the additional payments because FCA improperly

deducted $10 from the $20 per day to which he was entitled.

Aguilera next filed what we perceive to be a motion for partial summary judgment styled as a “Motion for an Order

Declaring that Child Support Not be Deducted from Maintenance.” The district court denied the motion, after concluding

that Aguilera’s maintenance and cure payments were subject

to withholding under the Order.

II.

We review the district court’s denial of Aguilera’s motion

for partial summary judgment de novo. See Amdahl Corp. v.

Profit Freight Sys. Inc., 65 F.3d 144, 146 (9th Cir. 1995). We

may affirm on any basis supported by the record. See E. & J.

Gallo Winery v. EnCana Corp., 503 F.3d 1027, 1049 (9th Cir.

2007). 

III.

[1] Under principles of general maritime law, seamen are

“entitled to ‘maintenance and cure’ from their employer for

injuries incurred ‘in the service of the ship[.]’ ” Sentry Select

Ins. Co. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Am., 481 F.3d 1208, 1214 n.1

(9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S.

347, 354 (1995)). “Maintenance and cure is designed to provide a seaman with food and lodging when he becomes sick

or injured in the ship’s service; and it extends during the

period when he is incapacitated to do a seaman’s work and

continues until he reaches maximum medical recovery.”

Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527, 531 (1962). 

[2] The district court held that state law, instead of maritime law, governed the question whether Aguilera’s maintenance and cure payments were subject to attachment under

the Order. This holding was correct under applicable federal

AGUILERA v. FISHING COMPANY OF ALASKA 9903
law. Congress stated in 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(h)(2) that “[i]n

interpreting a child support order including the duration of

current payments and other obligations of support, a court

shall apply the law of the State of the court that issued the

order.” We reject as unfounded Aguilera’s suggestion that

maritime law excepts maintenance and cure payments from

this general rule. Congress expressly recognized that a seaman’s wages are subject to attachment under a valid support

order. See 46 U.S.C. § 11109(a) (“Wages . . . are not subject

to attachment . . . , except for an order of a court about the

payment by a master or seaman of any part of the master’s or

seaman’s wages for the support and maintenance of the

spouse or minor children of the master or seaman, or both.”

(emphasis added)). We find no reasoned basis to distinguish

between a seaman’s wages and a seaman’s maintenance and

cure payments for purposes of satisfying a valid child support

obligation. 

[3] As noted, the Order was issued under Texas law. Therefore, it was appropriate to interpret Texas law when determining whether the maintenance and cure payments are subject to

withholding under the Order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(h)(2).

Texas law requires courts to calculate “resources” for purposes of determining child support liability. See Tex. Fam.

Code Ann. § 154.062(a). “Resources” are defined broadly

under Texas law to include “all other income actually being

received, including . . . disability and workers’ compensation

benefits . . . .” Id. § 154.062(b)(5). The only items that a court

may deduct to calculate the “net resources” that are subject to

withholding are (1) social security taxes; (2) federal income

taxes; (3) state income taxes; (4) union dues; and (5) health

insurance expenses or cash medical support for the obligor’s

child pursuant to court order. Id. § 154.062(d). Notably, Texas

law does not exclude maintenance and cure payments from its

definition of “resources.” 

[4] In light of this broad definition, the district court correctly denied Aguilera’s motion seeking a ruling that his

9904 AGUILERA v. FISHING COMPANY OF ALASKA
maintenance and cure payments did not constitute income.

Therefore, FCA acted appropriately when it withheld portions

of those payments in order to satisfy its duties under the

Order. 

AFFIRMED.

AGUILERA v. FISHING COMPANY OF ALASKA 9905