Day

Day v. American Seafoods Co.

Good Law
557 F.3d 1056·2009 WL 499545·2009 A.M.C. 1098·2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 4037
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 2, 200907-35712California1,096 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gould, J.

Jackie Day (“Day”), as executor of the estate of Jesse O’Neal, Jr. (“O’Neal”), appeals the order of the district court barring extrinsic evidence pertaining to the duration of O’Neal’s employment agreement with American Seafoods Company (“ASC”). O’Neal signed a contract to work for ASC that was limited to one fishing voyage and that included an integration clause. O’Neal hurt his neck and back on that voyage, and left the ship’s employ after the voyage. ASC paid O’Neal wages through the end of that trip, and O’Neal did not sign a new contract to work with ASC on another voyage. Day seeks “unearned wages” for a period of time longer than the single voyage agreed upon in the employment contract, and contends that extrinsic evidence will show an oral understanding for that longer period. The district court declined to admit parol evidence on the question. We review the district court’s application of the parol evidence rule de novo. See Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc., 885 F.2d 498, 503 (9th Cir.1989). We affirm.

Unearned wages are “the actual wages the seaman did not earn because of his injury or illness.” Berg v. Fourth Shipmor Assocs., 82 F.3d 307, 309 (9th Cir.1996). “Generally…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.