Chalos & Co, P.C. Marine Managers, Ltd et al
Filing
35
ORDER granting 24 Third party defendant Matthaios Fafalios's MOTION to dismiss defendants Marine Managers, Ltd. and Homeland Maritime, Ltd.'s third party complaint on the basis of forum non conveniens.. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 8/28/15. (jjs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHALOS & CO., P.C.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 14-2441
MARINE MANAGERS, LTD., ET AL.
SECTION: R(5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Third party defendant Matthaios Fafalios moves to dismiss defendants Marine
Managers, Ltd. and Homeland Maritime, Ltd.’s third party complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), failure to state a claim
under Rule 12(b)(6), and in the alternative, on the basis of forum non conveniens.1 For the
following reasons, the Court grants the motion.
I.
BACKGROUND
A.
Parties
Defendants and third-party plaintiffs Marine Managers, Ltd. (Marine) and
Homeland Maritime, Ltd. (Homeland) are foreign corporations organized and existing
under the laws of the Marshall Islands.2 At all relevant times, Marine and Homeland
managed and operated the M/V TRIDENT NAVIGATOR, a bulk cargo vessel that traveled
between international ports.3
1
R. Doc. 24.
2
R. Doc. 20 at 1 ¶ 1.
3
See id. at 3 ¶ 4.
Third-party defendant Matthaios Fafalios is a citizen of Greece, who presently
resides in Louisiana.4 On December 3, 2013, Marine and Homeland employed Fafalios as
Chief Engineer of the M/V TRIDENT NAVIGATOR.5
Plaintiff Chalos & Co., P.C. (Chalos) is a law firm organized and existing under the
laws of New York, with offices in New York, Texas, and Florida.6 Following a United States
criminal investigation into allegations that crew members aboard the M/V TRIDENT
NAVIGATOR illegally discharged oily waste into the ocean, Marine and Homeland hired
Chalos as independent legal counsel for Fafalios.7
B.
Procedural Background
On October 24, 2014, Chalos filed this breach of contract action against Marine and
Homeland, invoking the Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.8 Chalos
alleges that after signing an engagement and retainer agreement with the firm in February
2014, Marine and Homeland unilaterally declared the agreement null and void on June 17,
2014.9 Chalos seeks to recover the legal fees, costs, and expenses incurred in connection
with the firm’s representation of Fafalios.10
4
Id. at 1 ¶ 2.
5
R. Doc. 15-1 at 1; R. Doc. 20 at 2 ¶ 4.
6
See R. Doc. 1 at 1.
7
See R. Doc. 20 at 6 ¶ 14.
8
R. Doc. 1.
9
R. Doc. 27 at 5 ¶¶ 15-16.
10
Id. at 7 ¶ 22.
2
On February 2, 2015, Marine and Homeland filed a third-party complaint against
Fafalios alleging that he fraudulently induced them to enter the retainer agreement with
Chalos.11 Marine and Homeland invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332;
admiralty jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1333; and supplemental jurisdiction, 18 U.S.C. § 1367.
Marine and Homeland seek to recover approximately $46,000 in damages for money they
paid to Chalos before declaring the retainer agreement null. In addition, Marine and
Homeland impleaded Fafalios under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(c) to tender
Fafalios directly to Chalos for recovery of all of Chalos’s fees and expenses. Alternatively,
Marine and Homeland impleaded Fafalios under Rule 14(a) on the ground that Marine and
Homeland would pursue indemnity for any damages to Chalos for which Marine and
Homeland may be found liable.12
C.
Factual Background
In December 2013, Marine and Homeland (defendants) hired Fafalios to serve as
Chief Engineer for defendants’ vessel, the M/V TRIDENT NAVIGATOR.13 Defendants’
employment contract specified that Fafalios’s employment would last for a term of seven
months.14 The employment contract also contains both a choice of law provision, which
invokes Greek law, and a forum selection clause, which limits jurisdiction over disputes
related to the employment contract to the Courts of Piraeus in Greece. The parties’ choice
of law provision reads in relevant part: “This Contract (“the Contract”) shall be exclusively
11
R. Doc. 20.
12
R. Doc. 20 at 10 ¶ 28.
13
R. Doc. 27 at 3 ¶ 9.
14
R. Doc. 15-1 at 2.
3
governed by and construed according to the Greek Laws and the GSCA . . . to the exclusion
of any other foreign legislation.”15 The forum selection clause provides in full:
This Contract is supplemented by the Company’s Policy and Regulations,
Greek Law and the GSCA. Any dispute arising out of the interpretation or the
performance of this Contract shall be referred to the Courts of Piraeus
(Maritime Division) which are exclusively competent to hear these disputes
applying Greek Law to the exclusion of the Courts of any country or
jurisdiction.16
In mid-January 2014, approximately one month into Fafalios’s employment, the
United States began investigating the M/V TRIDENT NAVIGATOR and its crew after the
vessel voyaged from Saudi Arabia to New Orleans, Louisiana. The Government suspected
that the M/V TRIDENT NAVIGATOR had illegally discharged “oily waste” in violation of
the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, 33 U.S.C. § 1901, et seq.17 At Fafalios’s urging,
defendants hired Chalos to be his criminal defense counsel, and the parties confirmed
Fafalios’s legal representation in a retainer agreement executed in full on February 17,
2014.18
On June 17, 2014, defendants notified Chalos that they considered the retainer
agreement to be null and void and refused to continue to pay Fafalios’s legal fees.19 Chalos
continued to represent Fafalios, who proceeded to criminal trial and was found guilty on
15
R. Doc. 15-1 at 1.
16
R. Doc. 15-1 at 7, cl. 14.
17
R. Doc. 27 at 3-4 ¶ 11.
18
Id. at 5 ¶ 15, 22-24.
19
Id. at 5-6 ¶ 16.
4
December 16, 2014.20 Chalos invoiced nearly $400,000 in legal fees and expenses
associated with Fafalios’s representation.21
Defendants argue that their retainer agreement with Chalos for Fafalios’s
representation is null and that they should not be liable for Fafalios’s legal fees because
defendants agreed to the contract in error.22 Defendants’ third-party complaint alleges that
unbeknownst to defendants, on two occasions in December 2013, Fafalios, while Chief
Engineer of the M/V TRIDENT NAVIGATOR, instructed certain crew members to illegally
discharge oily waste into the ocean.23 Again, unknown to defendants, Fafalios then falsified
entries in the M/V TRIDENT NAVIGATOR’s Oil Record Book to conceal his illegal
actions.24 Fafalios also allegedly made false statements and encouraged other crew
members to make false statements to members of the United States Coast Guard during the
Government’s criminal investigation.25 In addition, defendants assert that Fafalios misled
defendants and their attorneys during the investigation because Fafalios persistently
asserted his innocence while knowingly making false statements to defendants and others.26
Relying on Fafalios’s repeated assurances of innocence, defendants agreed to pay for
20
Id. at 6 ¶ 19.
21
Id. at ¶ 17.
22
R. Doc. 7 at 2.
23
R. Doc. 20 at 2-3 ¶¶ 5-6.
24
Id. at 3 ¶ 7.
25
Id. at 4 ¶¶ 9-10.
26
Id. at 5 ¶ 12.
5
independent legal counsel, Chalos, to represent Fafalios in the Government’s investigation
and eventual criminal proceedings.27
Only after defendants executed Chalos’s retainer agreement did defendants allegedly
learn about Fafalios’s misrepresentations. The Government disclosed to defendants certain
physical evidence that contradicted Fafalios’s prior statements. In addition, other crew
members recanted their statements and notified defendants that those false statements
were made at Fafalios’s urging.28 On June 17, 2014, defendants notified Chalos that they
considered the retainer agreement null and that they would not be responsible for any legal
fees incurred on Fafalios’s behalf. At that time, defendants had already paid Chalos
approximately $46,000.29
Fafalios, as third-party defendant, now moves to dismiss defendants’ third-party
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and forum non
conveniens. The Court concludes that defendants’ third-party complaint should be
dismissed for forum non conveniens. Accordingly, the Court will not address Fafalios’s
other grounds for dismissal.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court to decline jurisdiction and
dismiss a case, even when the case is properly before the court, if it may be more
conveniently tried in another forum. In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 313 (5th
27
Id. at 6 ¶ 14.
28
Id. at 7-8 ¶¶ 18-19.
29
Id. at 8 ¶¶ 20-21.
6
Cir. 2008). The doctrine “rests upon a court's inherent power to control the parties and the
cases before it and to prevent its process from becoming an instrument of abuse or
injustice.” In re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc.,
821 F.2d 1147, 1153-54 (5th Cir. 1987) (en banc), vacated on other grounds sub nom., Pan
Am. World Airways, Inc. v. Lopez, 490 U.S. 1032 (1989), opinion reinstated on other
grounds, 883 F.2d 17 (5th Cir. 1989) (en banc). The doctrine allows the court to dismiss
a case because the plaintiff’s chosen forum is “so completely inappropriate and
inconvenient that it is better to stop the litigation in the place where brought and let it start
all over again somewhere else.” In re Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 313 n.8 (quoting Norwood
v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 29, 31 (1955)). Because the doctrine “not only denies the plaintiff
the generally accorded privilege of bringing an action where he chooses, but makes it
possible for him to lose out completely,” it is subject to “careful limitation.” Id.
In analyzing whether a case should be dismissed for forum non conveniens, the
Court must first determine whether an adequate alternative forum exists. Piper Aircraft
Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 254 n.22 (1981); DTEX, LLC v. BBVA Bancomer, S.A., 508 F.3d
785, 794 (5th Cir. 2007). The alternative forum must be both available and adequate. See
Alpine View Co. Ltd. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 221 (5th Cir. 2000). A forum is
available if “the entire case and all parties can come within the jurisdiction of that forum.”
Gonzalez v. Chrysler Corp., 301 F.3d 377, 379 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing In re Air Crash
Disaster, 821 F.2d at 1165). A forum is adequate if the parties will not be deprived of all
remedies or treated unfairly. See Alpine View, 205 F.3d at 221. If the defendant shows that
an adequate alternative forum exists, the court must then consider whether certain private
and public interest factors weigh in favor of dismissal. Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 257;
7
McLennan v. Am. Eurocopter Corp., Inc., 245 F.3d 403, 424 (5th Cir.2001). The defendant
bears the burden of persuading the court that a lawsuit should be dismissed on forum non
conveniens grounds. DTEX, 508 F.3d at 794.
The existence of a contractual forum selection clause imposes a heavy burden on the
party resisting dismissal. See Carnival Cruise Lines, 499 U.S. 585, 586 (1991). Forum
selection clauses are prima facie valid and should be enforced unless the non-moving party
can show that enforcement would be unreasonable or unjust under the circumstances. M/S
BREMEN v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1972). Unreasonableness may exist
when (1) the incorporation of the forum selection clause into the parties’ contract was a
result of fraud or overreaching; (2) the party seeking to escape enforcement of the forum
selection clause “will . . . be deprived of his day in court” because of grave inconvenience or
unfairness of the selected forum; (3) the fundamental unfairness of the chosen law will
deprive the plaintiff of a remedy; and/or (4) enforcement of the forum selection clause
would contravene a strong public policy of the forum state. Haynsworth v. The Corp., 121
F.3d 956, 963 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing Carnival Cruise Lines, 499 U.S. 585, 595 (1991);
Bremen, 407 U.S. at 12-13, 15, 18).
III.
DISCUSSION
The sole basis on which Fafalios argues defendants’ claim should be dismissed for
forum non conveniens is the applicability of the forum selection clause in the employment
contract between defendants and Fafalios. Atl. Marine Constr. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court
for the W. Dist. of Tex., 134 S. Ct. 568, 580 (2013) (“[T]he appropriate way to enforce a
8
forum-selection clause pointing to a state or foreign forum is through the doctrine of forum
non conveniens.”).
“[A] valid forum-selection clause [should be] given controlling weight in all but the
most exceptional cases.” Id. at 581 (quoting Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22,
33 (1988) (Kennedy, J., concurring)). Neither defendants nor Fafalios dispute the validity
of the forum selection clause in the employment contract.30 Nor do defendants show that
enforcement of the clause would be unreasonable or unjust under the circumstances.
Instead, defendants argue that the forum selection clause is inapplicable because
defendants’ fraud claim against Fafalios arises “completely independently” of the parties’
employment contract.31 Accordingly, the issue before the Court is not whether the forum
selection clause is enforceable, but whether it applies to this dispute.
A.
Applicability of the Forum Selection Clause
Before a court will enforce a forum selection clause, it must first determine “whether
the clause applies to the type of claims asserted in the lawsuit.” Braspetro Oil Servs. Co.
v. Modec (USA), Inc., 240 F. App’x 612, 616 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Terra Int’l, Inc. v. Miss.
Chem. Corp., 119 F.3d 688, 692 (8th Cir. 1997)). The court “must look to the language of
the parties’ contract[] to determine which causes of action are governed by the forum
selection clause[].” Id. (quoting Marinechance Shipping, Ltd. v. Sebastian, 143 F.3d 216,
222 (5th Cir. 1998)). “[I]f the substance of the[] claims, stripped of their labels, does not
30
R. Doc. 29 at 21 (“Defendants do not seek to invalidate that clause, and
agree that any dispute arising out of the interpretation or performance of Fafalios’
contract . . . should be decided in Greece by the Greek courts.”).
31
R. Doc. 29 at 21-22.
9
fall within the scope of the [forum selection] clause[], the clause[] cannot apply.” Roby v.
Corp. of Lloyd’s, 996 F.2d 1353, 1361 (2d Cir. 1993).
To determine whether a forum selection clause applies to specific tort claims, the
Eighth Circuit has enunciated three general tests: (1) whether the tort claims “ultimately
depend on the existence of a contractual relationship between the parties”; (2) whether
resolution of the tort claims “relates to the interpretation of the contract”; and (3) whether
the tort claims “involve the same operative facts as a parallel claim for breach of contract.”
Terra Int’l, 119 F.3d at 694; see also Manetti-Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci Am., Inc., 858 F.2d 509,
514 (9th Cir. 1988) (applying the “relates to interpretation of the contract” test); Gullion v.
JLG Serviceplus, Inc., No. H-06-1015, 2007 WL 294174, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2007)
(relying on Terra Int’l).
Here, the forum selection clause states, “Any dispute arising out of the interpretation
or the performance of this Contract shall be referred to the Courts of Piraeus (Maritime
Division) which are exclusively competent to hear these disputes applying Greek Law to the
exclusion of the Courts of any country or jurisdiction.”32 The operative language is “[a]ny
dispute arising out of the interpretation or the performance of this Contract.”
As a general rule, courts read forum selection clauses broadly, “in keeping with the
public policy favoring their use.” Paduano v. Express Scripts, Inc., 55 F. Supp. 3d 400, 432
(E.D.N.Y. 2014) (collecting cases). For example, courts have held that “the language
‘arising out of’ is broad in scope and reaches all disputes that have their origin in the
employment contract, regardless of whether the dispute involves interpretation or
32
R. Doc. 15-1 at 7, cl. 14.
10
performance of the contract per se.” Marzano v. Proficio Mortg. Ventures, LLC, 942 F.
Supp. 2d 781, 789 (N.D. Ill. 2013) (collecting cases);33 see also TradeComet.com LLC v.
Google, Inc., 435 F. App’x 31, 35 (2d Cir. 2011) (interpreting a forum selection clause that
reads, “arising out of or relating to this agreement or the Google Program(s),” broadly to
encompass plaintiff’s claim); Coors Brewing Co. v. Molson Breweries, 51 F.3d 1511, 1515
(10th Cir. 1995) (holding that “arising in connection with the implementation,
interpretation or enforcement” was broad language). Similarly, courts hold that the use of
phrases like “arising out of” should be read broadly to encompass both contractual and tort
claims. See, e.g., Paduano, 55 F. Supp. 3d at 432 (“[W]hen ‘arising out of,’ ‘relating to,’ or
similar language appears in a forum selection clause, “such language is regularly construed
to encompass securities, antitrust, and tort claims associated with the underlying
contract.”); see also Roby, 996 F.2d at 1361 (holding that there is “no substantive difference
. . . between the phrases ‘relating to,’ ‘in connection with’ or ‘arising from,’ and that such
language should be broadly read to include tort actions). Courts also find phrases like “any
dispute” indicative of the broad scope of a forum selection clause or similar contractual
provision. See Louis Dreyfus Negoce S.A. v. Blystad Shipping & Trading Inc., 252 F.3d
218, 225 (2d Cir. 2001) (interpreting broadly a clause that stated, “any dispute arising from
the making, performance or termination of this Charter Party”); Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp.
33
The Court notes that some of the cited cases pertain to the scope and
interpretation of arbitration clauses, rather than forum selection clauses. These cases
are nonetheless persuasive because “in relevant aspects, there is no difference between
the two.” Vimar Seguros y Reaseguro, S.A. v. M/V SKY REEFER, 515 U.S. 528, 532
(Stevens, J. dissenting); see also Lim v. Offshore Specialty Fabricators, Inc., 404 F.3d
898, 901-02 (“Therefore, analysis of foreign forum selection clauses can be extended to
forum arbitration clauses.”).
11
v. Boston & Me. Corp., 850 F.2d 756, 760 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (explaining that the phrase
“[a]ny claim or controversy” is broad in scope).
Here, defendants attempt to contrast what they characterize as two separate disputes
with Fafalios. In what defendants call the “Retainer Agreement Controversy,” the issue is
who, if anyone, is liable for the fees and expenses Chalos incurred in representing Fafalios
during his criminal investigation and trial.34 The second dispute, termed the “Employment
Controversy,” “involves whether Fafalios is liable to Defendants for the damages vicariously
inflicted on them when, as an employee of Defendants under a Greek seaman’s contract,
Fafalios illegally discharged oil into the ocean and falsified records to cover-up his crime.”35
Defendants point out that “the Employment Controversy must and will be resolved under
Greek law, by Greek courts, who alone are empowered to interpret the Fafalios
Employment Contract.”36
The Court concludes that the forum selection clause encompasses defendants’ claim
for fraud, which is ultimately grounded in Fafalios’s conduct as a seaman aboard the M/V
TRIDENT NAVIGATOR. Interpreting the forum selection clause broadly, the Court finds
that the language “[a]ny dispute arising out of the interpretation or the performance of this
Contract” encompasses all disputes that “have their origin in the employment contract,
regardless of whether the dispute involves the interpretation or performance of the contract
per se.” See Marzano, 942 F. Supp. 2d at 789.
34
R. Doc. 29 at 2.
35
Id.
36
Id.
12
Both the Employment Controversy and the Retainer Agreement Controversy are
grounded in Fafalios’s employment relationship with defendants. “[P]olicies justifying
application of forum selection clauses in contract cases are equally applicable to tort causes
of action arising out of that contractual relationship.” Knight Oil Tools, Inc. v. Unit
Petroleum Co., No. CIV 05-0669 JB/ACT, 2005 WL 2313715, at *12 (D.N.M. Aug. 31, 2005)
(citing Coastal Steel Corp. v. Tilghman Wheelabrator, Ltd., 709 F.2d 190 (3d Cir. 1983)).
Notably, Fafalios was still employed as a seaman at the time of the illegal discharge in
January 2014, as well as at the time of the alleged fraud in February 2014.37 Defendants
agreed to hire Chalos on Fafalios’s behalf while they internally investigated their own vessel
and crew to determine whether any improper or illegal activity occurred. There are no facts
that would indicate that at this time, defendants no longer considered Fafalios to be their
employee.
Accordingly, the material facts surrounding the “Retainer Agreement
Controversy” arose during the course of Fafalios’s employment.
More importantly, defendants’ tort claim “involve[s] the same operative facts as a
parallel claim for breach of contract.” See, e.g., Terra Int’l, 119 F.3d at 694; ManettiFarrow, 858 F. 2d at 514. In defendants’ own words, the Employment Controversy
“involves whether Fafalios is liable to Defendants for the damages vicariously inflicted on
them when, as an employee of Defendants under a Greek seaman’s contract, Fafalios
illegally discharged oil into the ocean and falsified records to cover-up his crime.” To
prevail on the Retainer Agreement Controversy, defendants must prove that Fafalios falsely
proclaimed his innocence, which means defendants must first prove that Fafalios actually
37
See R. Doc. 15-1 at 2 (specifying that Fafalios’s employment, which began
in December 2014, would continue for a period of seven months).
13
discharged the oil illegally and falsified records to conceal his actions. In other words, to
show that Fafalios misrepresented his innocence, defendants have to prove the same
conduct that breached the employment contract. That defendants must also show that
Fafalios falsely proclaimed his innocence does not change the result.
Therefore,
defendants’ fraud claim rests on the same material facts as any potential parallel breach of
contract action, which defendants freely admit must be litigated in Greece. “[C]laims
involving the same operative facts as a claim for breach of contract that is subject to a forum
selection clause should also be litigated in the forum chosen by the parties.” Rivera v.
Centro Medico de Turabo, Inc., 575 F.3d 10, 24 (1st Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted).
Finally, in support of his motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, Fafalios
argues that defendants’ claim to indemnity for any liability on Chalos’s retainer agreement
must arise out of the performance of the employment contract because the contract
contains an indemnity provision.38 The provision on which Fafalios relies states in full:
“The seaman hereby agrees and hereby gives irrevocable order to the Company to withhold
from his wages, any amount for covering/indemnifying the Company for any potential
damage suffered by the Company through his illegal acts or omissions.”39 In opposition,
defendants fail to address specifically Fafalios’s claim that the indemnity provision in the
employment contract must apply. Because the Courts of Piraeus maintain exclusive
jurisdiction over the employment contract, whether this indemnity provision does in fact
apply to defendants’ claim of indemnity on the basis of Fafalios’s fraud is a matter of
contractual interpretation that the employment contract vests in the Greek courts. Any
38
R. Doc. 24-1 at 18.
39
R. Doc. 15-1 at 6, cl. 11(e).
14
attempt to determine whether Fafalios’s indemnity argument has merit would violate the
plain language of the forum selection clause. In sum, the Court finds that the forum
selection clause in the parties’ employment contract applies to this dispute.
Because the Court finds that the forum selection clause applies, defendants, as the
parties resisting enforcement, bear the burden to show that enforcement would be
unreasonable or unjust under the circumstances. Bremen, 407 U.S. at 16-17; Haynsworth,
121 F.3d at 963. Defendants have made no attempt to show that enforcement of the forum
selection clause would be unreasonable here. Therefore, this dispute must be litigated in
Greece.
B.
Effect of Rule 14(c) Impleader
In addition to suing Fafalios for damages, defendants seek to tender him as a
defendant to Chalos under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(c). Under Rule 14(c), “the
third-party plaintiff may demand judgment in the plaintiff’s favor against the third-party
defendant [and] the action proceeds as if the plaintiff had sued both the third-party
defendant and the third-party plaintiff.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(c)(2). Defendants argue that
because Rule 14(c) requires the plaintiff to proceed directly against the third party, Fafalios
cannot rely on the forum selection clause to achieve dismissal.
Even if defendants are correct, the Court finds that their attempt to implead Fafalios
under Rule 14(c) is improper. Rule 14(c) provides in relevant part:
If a plaintiff asserts an admiralty or maritime claim under Rule 9(h), the
defendant . . . may, as a third-party plaintiff, bring in a third-party defendant
who may be wholly or partly liable--either to the plaintiff or to the third-party
plaintiff--for remedy over, contribution, or otherwise on account of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.
15
Rule 14(c)(1). By its plain language, Rule 14(c) requires that the original plaintiff must have
asserted an admiralty or maritime claim under Rule 9(h). See Luera v. M/V ALBERTA, 635
F.3d 181, 187 (5th Cir. 2011) (noting Rule 14(c) impleader was available because the
plaintiff’s original claim was in admiralty); Harrison v. Glendel Drilling Co., 679 F. Supp.
1413, 1417 (W.D. La. 1988) (holding Rule 14(c) “has no application” where the original
plaintiff did not bring his claim under the court’s admiralty jurisdiction even though the
defendants’ third-party claims arose under maritime law). In addition, the Fifth Circuit
requires that the third-party plaintiff’s claim also arise under admiralty or maritime law.
Ambraco, Inc. v. Bossclip B.V., 570 F.3d 233, 243 (5th Cir. 2009) (“In addition, the Rule
requires the third-party plaintiff . . . to assert an action sounding [in] admiralty or maritime
. . . .”).
Here, Chalos’s state-law breach of contract claim does not arise under admiralty or
maritime law. Therefore, defendants’ impleader is not proper under Rule 14(c).
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS third-party defendant Matthaios
Fafalios’s Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens.
28th
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _______ day of August, 2015.
___________________________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?