Court Opinion

ID: 9463042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:57:01.625005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:54.860309
License: Public Domain

VAN GRAAFEILAND,
Circuit Judge (dissenting):
Although I believe that the District Court was correct in holding the Jones Act inapplicable to all three defendants I would, nonetheless, have been willing to concur with my colleagues in reversing as to plaintiff’s employer had they held simply that the decision as to it should await more complete development of the facts. However, when the majority, finding facts to have been established which, at best, are in dispute, holds the Jones Act applicable to all defendants I have no alternative but to record my dissent.1
The Eurybates, the vessel on which appellant was injured, was owned by Cia. Marítima San Basilio S.A., a Panamanian corporation. In support of its application to dismiss, Marítima submitted the affidavit of its vice president which stated:
“None of the directors or shareholders of CIA MARITIMA SAN BASILIO S.A. are [sic] residents or citizens of the United States of America.”2
In the face of this unequivocal statement and the District Court’s finding in support thereof, I find inexplicable the majority’s statements that some or all of these stockholders are American citizens. The deposition referred to in footnote 5 of the majority opinion was not taken in this case. Indeed, we are not informed when and in what action it was taken, except that apparently it antedated 1962. The unsatisfactory excerpt from this mysteriously unidentified deposition, upon which my brothers rely, is set forth in its entirety in the margin.3 In it, Panaghi D. Marchessini testifies *311that he, his wife and two sons, are the shareholders of some unnamed corporation and that they are American citizens. At least five years after this testimony was taken, we stated in Garis v. Compania Maritima San Basilio, S.A., 386 F.2d 155, 157 (2d Cir. 1967) (per curiam) that Maritima’s “officers, directors, and stockholders were citizens and residents of Greece.” There is nothing in the record to indicate that the situation has changed since that opinion was written.
When a complaint asserts a substantial claim under the Jones Act, the District Court has jurisdiction to determine whether in fact the Act does provide the rights upon which plaintiff relies. Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354, 359, 79 S.Ct. 468, 3 L.Ed.2d 368 (1959). The question before the District Court, therefore, was not one of jurisdiction. Rather, it was whether plaintiff’s cause of action is “well founded in law and in fact”, Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571, 575, 73 S.Ct. 921, 924, 97 L.Ed. 1254 (1953); i. e. whether the Jones Act is applicable to any of the appellees under the facts of the case. Voyiatzis v. National Shipping & Trading Corp., 199 F.Supp. 920, 922 (S.D.N.Y.1961). If the Jones Act does apply, appellees’ liability must be determined in accordance with its broadly remedial substantive provisions. Dassigienis v. Cosmos Carriers & Trading Corp., 442 F.2d 1016, 1017 (2d Cir. 1971).
Although challenges to Jones Act coverage are usually by motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Gilmore & Black, The Law of Admiralty, 481 (1975), appellees’ motion below was for summary judgment. Whatever the form of the motion, it was not the proper medium for deciding disputed questions of fact. Bernstein v. Universal Pictures, Inc., 517 F.2d 976, 979 (2d Cir. 1975); Heyman v. Commerce & Industry Insurance Co., 524 F.2d 1317 (2d Cir. 1975). The facts either warrant the application of the Jones Act or they do not, Bartholomew v. Universe Tankships, Inc., 263 F.2d 437, 443 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1000, 79 S.Ct. 1138, 3 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1959); and the resolution of disputed questions of fact is for the trial. Rodriguez v. Solar Shipping, Ltd., 169 F.Supp. 79 (S.D.N.Y.1958). In my opinion, it is as erroneous to hold, on the basis of disputed pre-trial affidavits, that appellees’ duties are fixed by the Jones Act as it would be to hold that they are not. Insofar as my brothers make a present determination that the Act is applicable to the three appellees, I respectfully dissent.

. Since the Jones Act applies only as between employee and employer, Mahramas v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 475 F.2d 165, 170 (2d Cir. 1973), it is clear, under any version of the facts herein, that the complaint was properly dismissed as to two of the named defendants.

. A similar affidavit was filed by one of the attorneys for the defendants.

. EXAMINATION BY MR. SALEM:
Q. Will you please state your full name for the record?
A. My full name is Panaghi D. Marchessini.
Q. Are you an American citizen, Mr. Marchessini?
A. Yes, I am.
*311* * * * * *
Q. Do you know who the stockholders of that corporation are ?
A. Yes.
Q. Who are they?
A. The stockholders are myself and my family.
Q. Who is that?
A. My sons and my wife.
Q. Your two sons?
A. My two sons and my wife.
Q. And your wife is, of course, an American citizen?
A. She is.
Q. And your two sons are American citizens?
A. They are.
Q. This situation has existed for a number of years?
A. What situation?
Q. Stock ownership.
A. Yes, many years.