Tobey v. Atwood Oceanics, Inc.
Date Decided: August 30th, 2010
Originally Filed in: Texas (federal)
Decided by: Texas Southern District Court (Federal)
Court: S.D.Tex.
Judge: Atlas
Citation: 2010 WL 3447639
Background:
Plaintiff, a Jones Act Seaman, brought this suit in the Southern District of Texas, alleging claims under the Jones Act and the General Maritime Law. The defendants in this case filed a motion to dismiss the case, alleging that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff alleged the injury took place four years before filing this case in the Southern District of Texas. The statute of limitations for both Jones Act and General Maritime Law claims is three years. The plaintiff alleged the exception of "equitable tolling" prevented the claim from tolling the statute of limitations because the action was timely filed in a Louisiana Federal Court and subsequently dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant before he brought this current action.
Plaintiff, a Jones Act Seaman, brought this suit in the Southern District of Texas, alleging claims under the Jones Act and the General Maritime Law. The defendants in this case filed a motion to dismiss the case, alleging that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff alleged the injury took place four years before filing this case in the Southern District of Texas. The statute of limitations for both Jones Act and General Maritime Law claims is three years. The plaintiff alleged the exception of "equitable tolling" prevented the claim from tolling the statute of limitations because the action was timely filed in a Louisiana Federal Court and subsequently dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant before he brought this current action.
Issues:
Does the doctrine of "equitable tolling" prevent the statute of limitations from tolling on the plaintiff's case when the plaintiff originally filed the suit timely in another jurisdiction? As well, does a state's statute of limitations rules prevent the federal statute of limitations from tolling in an admiralty claim?
Does the doctrine of "equitable tolling" prevent the statute of limitations from tolling on the plaintiff's case when the plaintiff originally filed the suit timely in another jurisdiction? As well, does a state's statute of limitations rules prevent the federal statute of limitations from tolling in an admiralty claim?
Held:
No. The court dismissed the claim, with prejudice, because it was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Except as otherwise provided by law, a civil action for damages for personal injury or death arising out of a maritime tort must be brought within 3 years after the cause of action arose. 46 U.S.C. § 30106. The exception of "equitable tolling" is permitted to stop the tolling of the statute of limitations in cases where the plaintiff shows that rare and exceptional circumstances would warrant application of the doctrine. Factors include diligence on the party of the party bringing the action because "equity is not intended for those who sleep on their rights." In this case, the plaintiff waited almost fifteen months between the time the original suit was dismissed in Louisiana from the time he brought this suit in Texas. As well, the plaintiff provided no explanation for the significant delay. For that reason, the court found the delay unreasonable. Lastly, the court held that a state's rules regarding the statute of limitations do not apply to federal laws where the statute of limitations has been expressly provided.
No. The court dismissed the claim, with prejudice, because it was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Except as otherwise provided by law, a civil action for damages for personal injury or death arising out of a maritime tort must be brought within 3 years after the cause of action arose. 46 U.S.C. § 30106. The exception of "equitable tolling" is permitted to stop the tolling of the statute of limitations in cases where the plaintiff shows that rare and exceptional circumstances would warrant application of the doctrine. Factors include diligence on the party of the party bringing the action because "equity is not intended for those who sleep on their rights." In this case, the plaintiff waited almost fifteen months between the time the original suit was dismissed in Louisiana from the time he brought this suit in Texas. As well, the plaintiff provided no explanation for the significant delay. For that reason, the court found the delay unreasonable. Lastly, the court held that a state's rules regarding the statute of limitations do not apply to federal laws where the statute of limitations has been expressly provided.
Comments:
Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving some exception circumstance has occurred in order to avoid the dismissal of a maritime suit when that suit is filed after the statute of limitations has passed.
Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving some exception circumstance has occurred in order to avoid the dismissal of a maritime suit when that suit is filed after the statute of limitations has passed.
<< PREVNEXT >>
