JLB LLC v. Egger
| Decision Date | 28 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-11890-ADB |
| Citation | 462 F.Supp.3d 68 |
| Parties | JLB LLC, Plaintiff, v. Christian R. EGGER, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Robert W. Stetson, III, Bernkopf Goodman LLP, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.
Brian Keane, Keane Law Group, P.C., Boston, MA, for Defendant.
BURROUGHS, D.J.
Plaintiff JLB LLC (the "Owner") filed this action against Defendant Christian Egger ("Egger"), alleging breach of contract and seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as monetary damages. [ECF No. 1 ("Compl.") ]. Currently pending before the Court is Egger's motion to dismiss, which he brings pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), 12(b)(3), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6). [ECF No. 17]. For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss, [ECF No. 17], is DENIED.
This summary draws from "the facts [alleged in] the pleadings and whatever supplemental filings (such as affidavits) are contained in the record, giving credence to the plaintiff's version of genuinely contested facts." Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC v. Alpenrose Dairy, Inc., 825 F.3d 28, 34 (1st Cir. 2016). The Court may also consider "facts put forward by the defendants, to the extent that they are uncontradicted." Daynard v. Ness, 290 F.3d 42, 51 (1st Cir. 2002).
In 2019, the Owner purchased a custom-built, sixty-eight-foot yacht ("the Vessel"). [ECF No. 20 at 1–2]. In May 2019, while looking for a captain to deliver the Vessel to Massachusetts from Florida, the Owner found a post online in which Egger, a licensed yacht captain, "offer[ed] his services to East Coast yacht owners." [Compl. ¶ 9; ECF No. 17-2 ("Egger Aff.") ¶ 3]. On May 4, 2019, the Owner called Egger from its principal place of business in Massachusetts. [Compl. ¶¶ 1, 9, 10]. Egger offered to come to Boston, Massachusetts, for an interview. [Id. ¶ 10].
Egger drove from Virginia to Boston for the interview on May 12, 2019. [Id.; Egger Aff. ¶ 4]. During the interview, the Owner reviewed and provided Egger with copies of the Crew Requirements, [ECF No. 1-3], and the Maintenance Schedule, [ECF No. 1-4], and explained that "adherence to the [policies] were essential to the position and that any breach would subject the crew to immediate dismissal." [Compl. ¶¶ 12–15]. The Owner also reviewed the zero-tolerance drug policy, which provided that Egger was not allowed to drink alcohol while on the Vessel and that he could be terminated immediately for drinking on board. [Id. ¶ 13; ECF No. 1-3 at 2]. The Owner emphasized that the timely delivery of the Vessel was "important for the Owner's business purposes," as the Owner had scheduled a corporate event on the Vessel in Massachusetts on June 14, 2019. [Compl. ¶¶ 17, 32]. Once Egger delivered the Vessel to Massachusetts, most of Egger's responsibilities would be performed onshore, with approximately twenty percent of his working time being offshore. [Id. ¶ 19].
Egger "reiterated that he understood the requirements and ... assured [the Owner] that he would carry out all of his duties in an exemplary manner." [Id. ¶ 20]. He asked that the Owner rent an apartment in Falmouth, Massachusetts, for Egger and his family during the summer of 2019, [id. ¶ 21], and said that he was looking forward to spending time in Cape Cod, as he and his wife had family in the area, [id. ¶ 18].
At the end of the interview, the Owner offered Egger the position with a salary of $85,000 per year and agreed to rent an apartment for him in Falmouth. [Id. ¶ 21]. Egger accepted the position, to begin on June 1, 2019, with departure from Florida scheduled for June 5, 2019. [Id. ¶ 23]. The Owner reimbursed Egger $200 for the rental car and other travel expenses related to the interview. [Id. ¶ 5; ECF No. 17 at 1]. The parties did not sign a written contract. [Egger Aff. ¶ 8].
En route from Florida To Massachusetts to deliver the boat, Egger diverted the Vessel to go fishing, used the Owner's fishing gear, and instructed the mate not to tell the Owner about the diversion. [Compl. ¶ 24]. Further, Egger did not perform the Vessel's required daily maintenance, failed to prepare the Vessel for departures, and often drank alcohol and used the Owner's bar. [Id. ¶¶ 26, 28]. Though Egger had told the Owner during the interview that he was not a smoker, during the delivery, Egger smoked "one pack of cigarettes per day, including on the Vessel." [Id. ¶ 27].
On June 7, 2019, the Vessel's electronic tracking system alerted the Owner that "Egger had been operating the Vessel at excessive speeds for excessive periods of time," using more fuel than expected. [Id. ¶ 29]. Further, Egger requested that the Owner raise the credit card limit so that he could purchase additional fuel. [Id. ]. The Owner became "concerned about the Vessel's safety and care" and contacted the mate who informed the Owner about the fishing and "expressed concerns about the overall delivery conditions." [Id. ¶ 30].
The next day, on June 8, 2019, Egger told the Owner that he would be turning around and returning to port in Virginia due to sea conditions. [Id. ¶ 31; ECF No. 17 at 2]. Despite the Owner instructing the crew to stand by for a departure as soon as there was a break in the weather, Egger got drunk and ignored the Owner's calls and texts. [Compl. ¶¶ 31, 33]. Consequently, Egger "missed an opportunity to resume the trip" in time to meet the Vessel's scheduled delivery date. [Id. ¶¶ 31–32]. The mate called the Owner and said that "Egger ... was running the Vessel ‘too hard’ and ... had directed [the mate] not to have any communication with the Owner and not to work hard because [Egger and the mate] were being underpaid." [Id. ¶ 34].
"Several hours later," Egger called the Owner. [Id. ¶ 35]. Because Egger "slurred his speech" and made "incoherent comments," the Owner thought that he was intoxicated. [Id. ]. The Owner reminded Egger of the "no drinking policy and made clear that drinking at any time while Egger was charged with the care and custody of the Vessel was strictly prohibited." [Id. ]. Egger responded that he would do what he wanted on his "day off," despite the fact that the conversation took place on a work day. [Id. ]. The Owner then fired Egger and "prohibit[ed] him from being on the Vessel," which was still docked in Hampton, Virginia. [Id. ¶¶ 36, 43]. The Owner also called the Virginia police and asked the local dockmaster to remove Egger from the Vessel. [Id. ¶ 37]. The dock master "assured the Owner that he would stay on-site" to "protect the Vessel" from Egger "if needed." [Id. ¶ 39].
On June 10, 2019, Egger contacted the Owner to apologize for his behavior. [Id. ¶¶ 40–41]. The Owner "suggested that Egger write a letter of apology" and "reimburse the Owner for the prepaid rental housing costs, costs for fuel for fishing, and other costs incurred." [Id. ¶ 41]. Though Egger promised to send an apology letter by noon of the following day, the Owner never received it. [Id. ¶ 42]. Egger contacted the mate to tell him that he had hired a maritime attorney and wanted the mate to speak to the attorney so they could "agree on a strategy for a lawsuit." [Id. ]. Later that day, the Owner flew to Virginia and "witnessed that the Vessel was in a state of disarray." [Id. ¶ 43].
"As a result of Egger's conduct," the Owner incurred costs exceeding $25,000, including "travel and lodging costs to secure and protect the Vessel in Virginia, rent for the apartment the Owner had rented for Egger's use in Falmouth, a substitute Captain hired by the Owner on short notice, and unauthorized fuel charges and maintenance incurred by Egger during his unauthorized personal use of the Vessel ...." [Id. ¶ 44].
On June 12, 2019, Egger, through his Florida-based attorney, sent the Owner a demand letter in which he sought a total of $2,672.96 in unpaid wages and repatriation charges.1 [Id. ¶ 45]. The letter also stated that Egger "require[d]" the Owner's "immediate confirmation" that the unpaid wages and repatriation charges would be paid, in order to "avoid [Egger] filing a Notice of Claim of Lien with the United States Coast Guard against the yacht's Abstract of Title." [ECF No. 1-2 at 1]. Two days later, on June 14, 2019, the Owner, through its Massachusetts-based attorney, responded to Egger's letter by rejecting the demand for payment and "contended that [the] Owner [was] instead entitled to damages due to Egger's misconduct and numerous breaches of contract." [Compl. ¶ 46; ECF No. 1-5 at 2]. The Owner offered to escrow 200% of the amount of Egger's demand "to be held as a security for Egger's claim," but Egger rejected this offer, [Compl. ¶ 47], and "continue[d] to threaten seizure of the Vessel upon its return to Florida," [id. ¶ 48].
On September 5, 2019, the Owner filed the instant complaint. See [Compl.]. The Owner sent the pleadings to Egger's home address by "Federal Express mail, first class mail, and electronic mail," and retained a process server in Florida for individual service. [ECF No. 20 at 4]. The process server made three attempts at service on September 6, 9, and 10, 2019, and also called Egger's wife, "who refused to accept service on her husband's behalf and began padlocking the gate in front of her house to prevent access to her front door." [Id. ]. After these failed attempts, the server taped a copy of the pleadings to the outside of the gate. [Id. ]. Egger, who had been captaining a vessel in the Bahamas, discovered the documents taped to his gate when he returned to his home on September 10, 2019. [Egger Aff. ¶¶ 25, 26]. On November 8, 2019, the Owner hired a Florida constable to serve process upon Egger by Federal Express mail that required a signature, and on November 12, 2019, Egger's wife "accepted and signed for" the package of documents. [ECF No. 20 at 4–5].
On September 5, 2019, the Owner filed a complaint with the Court, [Compl.], alleging breach of contract, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Doe v. Harvard Univ., Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-12150-IT
-
Barnia v. Kaur
...one year, it is not covered by the statute of frauds, even if performance may, in fact, extend beyond one year. Id.; JLB LLC v. Egger, 462 F.Supp.3d 68, 87 (D. Mass. 2020); see also Boothby v. Texon, 608 N.E.2d 1028, 1035 (Mass. 1993); Doherty v. Doherty Ins. Agency, Inc., 878 F.2d 546, 551......
-
Doe v. McAdam Fin. Grp.
...up the number of contacts.” Daniel v. Am. Bd. of Emergency Medicine, 428 F.3d 408, 432-33 (2d Cir. 2005); see also JLB LLC v. Egger, 462 F.Supp.3d 68, 82 (D. Mass. 2020) (“When evaluating whether an action properly falls under § 1391(b)(2), the Court ‘takes a “holistic view”' of acts giving......