Reynolds v. Logan Charter Service, Inc., GC 82-282-WK-O.
Decision Date | 09 June 1983 |
Docket Number | No. GC 82-282-WK-O.,GC 82-282-WK-O. |
Citation | 565 F. Supp. 84 |
Parties | Jeffrie Scott REYNOLDS, Plaintiff, v. LOGAN CHARTER SERVICE, INC., et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi |
Robert A. Chaffin, Friedman & Chaffin, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff.
Harold W. Duke, Henderson, Duke & Dantone, Greenville, Miss., for defendants.
In this admiralty action, plaintiff, Jeffrie Scott Reynolds, sues defendants, Logan Charter Service, Inc., Logan Towing Service Co., Inc., and Twin City Barge, Inc., for injuries received while an employee of Logan Charter Service, Inc. The court has before it defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Defendants contend plaintiff's claims are barred by the three-year statutes of limitation under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688, and general maritime law. Plaintiff originally filed his Jones Act claim in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on June 7, 1982. There is no question that this suit was filed within three years of the date of injury. On November 9, 1982, that action was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Eight days later, on November 17, 1982, plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Said motion has not been ruled on by the district court. On November 23, 1982, this action was filed and because the injuries occurred June 15, 1979, more than three years prior to such filing, the court must determine whether the action is barred by the applicable statutes of limitation.
380 U.S. at 434-35, 85 S.Ct. at 1057-58, 13 L.Ed.2d at 949. Defendant argues that the Burnett holding is a limited one which applies only when the original suit is dismissed for improper venue and not, as in this case, for want of jurisdiction. For support, defendants rely on Fox v. The Eaton Corporation, 615 F.2d 716 (6th Cir.1980) and Cordeco Development Corp. v. Vazques, 354 F.Supp. 1355 (D. Puerto Rico, 1972). Both cases stand for the proposition that, as a general principle, the filing of an action in a court that lacks jurisdiction, will not toll the statute of limitations.
However, the Fifth Circuit has not interpreted Burnett so restrictively. In Platoro Limited, Inc. v. Unidentified Remains of A Vessel, 614 F.2d 1051 (5th Cir.1980), the court relied on Burnett and Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 82 S.Ct. 913, 8 L.Ed.2d 39 (1962), to toll the statute of limitations in an action which had originally been filed in a court which lacked jurisdiction. 614 F.2d at 1054-55. The Platoro court placed great emphasis on the Supreme Court's holding in Burnett that the "basic question is whether tolling the statute in a particular case is in keeping with the legislative intent underlying the Act itself." Id. at 1054. In Burnett, the court noted that the purpose of the statutes of limitation are to assure fairness to defendants by preventing the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost and witnesses have disappeared. 380 U.S. at 428, 85 S.Ct. at 1054, 13 L.Ed.2d at 945. This policy, the court held, "is frequently outweighed, however, where the interests of justice require vindication of the plaintiff's rights." Id.
Here, as in Platoro, "it would not be inconsistent with the legislative intent underlying the statute at issue to avoid the injustice that would result from the dismissal of plaintiff's claim because he made an erroneous choice with regard to the jurisdiction of the court." 614 F.2d at 1054. We are convinced that under Burnett and Platoro, the circumstances in this case warrant the tolling of the statute of limitations of the Jones Act. The filing of plaintiff's original lawsuit showed "proper diligence on the part of the plaintiff which such statutes of limitation were intended to insure." Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 467, 82 S.Ct. 913, 916, 8 L.Ed.2d 39 (1962). See also Burnett, 380 U.S. at 428, 85 S.Ct. at 1054, 13 L.Ed.2d at 945. When the original suit was dismissed for lack of sufficient minimum contacts between defendants and the State of Texas, plaintiff immediately filed a motion for reconsideration and filed his action in this court. Under these circumstances the "policy of repose" designed to protect defendants is certainly outweighed by plaintiff's right to have his claim adjudicated under this "humane and remedial act." Burnett, 380 U.S. at 427, 85 S.Ct. at 1054, 13 L.Ed.2d at 945.
Defendants also contend plaintiff's claim for maintenance and cure and damages based on breach of defendants' warranty to maintain a seaworthy vessel under General Maritime Law is barred by the three-year statute of limitations contained in 46 U.S.C. § 763a which states, "unless otherwise specified by law, a suit for recovery of damages for personal injury or death, or both, arising out of a maritime tort, shall not be maintained unless commenced within three years from the date the cause of action accrued." Id. Section 763a, however, was enacted October 6, 1980, and has been interpreted as not applying retroactively to injuries which occurred prior to that date. Gribshaw v. Ohio Barge Lines, Inc., 532 F.Supp. 866, 868 (W.D.Pa. 1982); Bush v. Sumitomo Bank & Trust Co., 513 F.Supp....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Norfolk and Western Ry. Co. v. Tsapis
...Eaton Corp., 615 F.2d 716 (6th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 935, 101 S.Ct. 1401, 67 L.Ed.2d 371 (1981); Reynolds v. Logan Charter Serv., Inc., 565 F.Supp. 84 (N.D.Miss.1983).9 Syllabus Point 1 of Hinkle states:"In determining whether to grant a rule to show cause in prohibition when a ......
-
Valenzuela v. Kraft, Inc.
...614 F.2d 1051, 1054-55 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 901, 101 S.Ct. 272, 66 L.Ed.2d 131 (1980); Reynolds v. Logan Charter Service, Inc., 565 F.Supp. 84, 85-86 (N.D.Miss.1983). The decision of the district court is affirmed. 5 * Honorable C.A. Meucke, Senior United States District Judge......
-
Tyrrell v. BNSF Ry. Co.
...that equitable tolling applied to suit filed in a court that lacked personal jurisdiction); Reynolds v. Logan Charter Serv., Inc., 565 F. Supp. 84, 86 (N.D. Miss. 1983) (rejecting argument that Burnett only applied to cases dismissed for improper venue and holding that equitable tolling app......
-
Kilgore v. Barnes
...See Perkins v. State, 487 So.2d 791, 792 (Miss.1986); Garrett v. Beaumont, 24 Miss. 377, 379 (1851); see also Reynolds v. Logan Charter Service, 565 F.Supp. 84, 86 (N.D.Miss.1983). On the other hand, most other jurisdictions recognize the authority of legislatures to enlarge periods of limi......