Flores v. THE" SS GEORGE LYKES", 39-59
| Decision Date | 16 February 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 39-59,40-59.,39-59 |
| Citation | 181 F. Supp. 53 |
| Parties | Arcadio FLORES, Libelant, v. THE Steamship "SS GEORGE LYKES", her engines, boilers, etc. and Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc., Respondent. Arcadio FLORES, Libelant, v. THE Steamship "SS NANCY LYKES", her engines, boilers, etc. and Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc., Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Golenbock & Nachman, Stanley L. Feldstein, San Juan, P. R., for libelant.
Hartzell, Fernandez & Novas, San Juan, P. R., for respondent.
These two actions are now before the Court on respondent's motions to dismiss the libels on the ground that the matters alleged in them are res adjudicata between the libellant and the respondent (who are the same in both cases), for the reasons set out in Respondent's Amended Answers to the libels.
Counsel for the parties were heard at the motion day call held on January 8, 1960 and memoranda in support of their respective positions have been filed.
After due consideration of the pleadings, the records of Civil cases Nos. 197-57 and 198-57 of this Court both entitled Arcadio Flores, plaintiff v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Company Inc., defendant, of the memoranda of counsel and the law on the subject, the court is fully advised in the premises.
The factual situation existing herein, is as follows:
The now libellant, in these two actions, Arcadio Flores, had previously filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, two civil actions against the now respondent, Lykes Bros. Steamship Co. Inc. claiming damages for injuries allegedly sustained by him on April 7, 1953 and in August 7, 1954 while working on board the "SS George Lykes" and the "SS Nancy Lykes" respectively. Both said actions were brought under the Jones Act (46 U.S.C.A. § 688) and the general maritime laws of the United States and Arcadio Flores, as plaintiff therein, charged unseaworthiness of the vessels, unavailability of a safe place to work, and the negligence of the master, crew and agents of the defendant as the cause of his accidents and of the damages claimed by him, as fully set out in the complaints therein.
On motion of the defendant both actions were transferred to this court where they were assigned Nos. 197-57 and 198-57 Civil.
The defendant in both said actions, respondent here, served notices for the taking of depositions of the therein plaintiff, Arcadio Flores, the present libellant. He and his attorneys failed to appear at the place and date fixed for the taking of the depositions. Defendant then filed with this court, motions under Rule 37(d) of the F.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C. A., to dismiss the actions for plaintiff's failure to appear at the taking of such depositions. Notice of said motions was given to plaintiff's counsel of record in both cases.
The motions came up for hearing before this court on December 6, 1957 and Samuel M. Cole, Esq., one of the attorneys for the plaintiff in said actions personally appeared at said hearing and objected to the granting of the dismissals. The Court, at said hearing, granted the plaintiff an additional period of 30 days within which to appear for the taking of the depositions, defendant's motions to dismiss having been left in abeyance.
Neither the plaintiff in said actions, the herein libellant Arcadio Flores nor his attorneys took any action to comply with the aforesaid order or ever appeared for the taking of said depositions.
In view of said plaintiff's contumacy in not obeying orders of the Court and in failing to appear for the taking of depositions within the additional period granted therefor, the Court by its orders of February 27, 1958, granted the defendant's motions to dismiss and ordered that the complaints in both cases, be, as they were dismissed with costs to be taxed against the plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the F.R.Civ.P.
No appeal was taken from said orders in any of the two cases.
On March 20, 1958, Samuel M. Cole, Esq., one of the attorneys for the plaintiff in both cases entered a consent to his substitution by Jerome Golenbock, Esq. and Stanley Feldstein, Esq. as attorneys for the plaintiff in both cases.
On December 9, 1958, Stanley L. Feldstein, as one of the substitute attorneys for the plaintiff in both cases, filed a motion requesting that the orders of February 27, 1958 dismissing both actions be vacated and that plaintiff be "permitted to amend the complaint and transfer the action to the Admiralty side". Defendant objected to said motions and after a hearing thereon the same were denied by orders of January 20, 1959.
No appeal was ever taken from said orders.
The Court in its dismissal orders of the aforesaid cases pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the F.R.Civ.P. did not specify that the dismissals were to be without prejudice and, therefore, such dismissals operated as adjudications upon the merits of each of the two actions, as further provided in said rule.
On February 26, 1959, i. e. one year after the orders of dismissal in Civil Nos. 197-57 and 198-57, the present actions in Admiralty, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which the former plaintiff in said Civil Actions, Arcadio Flores, appears as the libellant, and the former defendant in said two civil actions, Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc., and its respective vessels the S.S. George Lykes and the S.S. Nancy Lykes, appear as the respondent, were filed. The libels in these two actions in admiralty are based on the same facts and claim damages allegedly sustained by libellant due to the same charges of unseaworthiness, unavailability of a safe place to work and negligence, which had been alleged and were the subject of the claims formerly made by the now libellant, Arcadio Flores as the then plaintiff in the dismissed Civil Actions No. 197-57 and No. 198-57 of this court against the there defendant Lykes Bros. Steamship Co. Inc., respondent herein.
The respondent herein timely filed in the United...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Cross Steamship Co. v. Firipis
...paid in full, respondent shall be liable under the waiting time statute for each day since August 22, 1958 plus the amount actually due." 181 F.Supp. 53 Although the District Court seemed to have found that the failure to pay wages on April 2 was not justified, it did not assess double wage......
-
Prol v. Holland-America Line
...does not bar this action. The respondent's defense of res judicata is overruled." Id. at 948-949. Accord, Flores v. S.S. George Lykes, 181 F.Supp. 53, 57 (D.Puerto Rico 1960); 2 Benedict, Admiralty § 319 (1940); see Gray v. South Atlantic S.S. Line, Inc., 21 F.R.D. 578 Thus I am of the view......