Personal Injury Law

Seaman's motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) was improperly denied without evidentiary hearing after his Jones Act case was dismissed pursuant to a purported settlement. The record did not indicate that seaman had an informed understanding of his rights un

By Lipcon, Margulies & Alsina, P.A.

JAMES BRAD STEVERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GLOBALSANTAFE CORPORATION, d/b/a GLOBALSANTAFE DRILLING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 26559
November 15, 2007, Filed

PROCEDURAL POSTURE Plaintiff seaman appealed a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, which denied the seaman's motion brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to vacate a judgment of dismissal entered in the seaman's action against defendant employer, seeking recovery under the Jones Act and general maritime law for injuries sustained during his employment.

OVERVIEW: A magistrate judge entered a judgment of dismissal after attorneys for the parties announced a settlement, but no record of the settlement was taken by the court. The employer filed a motion to compel settlement when it was notified that the seaman would not sign the release, after which the seaman filed the present Rule 60 motion. On review, the court vacated the judgment, finding that the district court abused its discretion in denying the seaman's motion and request for evidentiary hearing. Affidavits of the seaman supported the seaman's assertion that he believed that he had 30 days to accept or decline the offer of settlement. The seaman's Rule 60 motion was made within a reasonable amount of time, and the court concluded that the interests of justice outweighed the virtue of finality of the judgment. There was no evidence in the record from the seaman indicating that he had an informed understanding of his rights pursuant to the settlement agreement. The district court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing on the Rule 60(b) motion to resolve conflicting stories or to otherwise assess the legal advice provided to the seaman by his counsel.

OUTCOME: The court vacated the district court's denial of the seaman's motion and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

Full post as published by Cruise Ship Law on November 01, 2007 (boomark / email).