Harper

Harper v. United States Seafoods LP

Good Law
278 F.3d 971·2002 WL 109274
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 29, 2002No. 01-35264California3,430 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McKeown, J.

This case calls for us to decide whether an admiralty statute that requires the master of a fishing vessel to “make an ... agreement in writing” with each crew-member before a voyage also requires the master’s signature on the agreement. 46 U.S.C. § 10601 . Although the predecessor statute dates from the late 1770s, surprisingly, this is a question of first impression in the Ninth Circuit. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of a seaman who was employed under a contract that the master did not sign. The district court held that the contract was invalid because the statute required this signature. We agree and affirm.

Background

Defendant-Appellant United States Sea-foods L.P. employed Plaintiff-Appellee Joe Harper on its fishing vessel Seafreeze Alaska in early 2000. The Seafreeze Alaska is a factory trawler that operates out of Alaska, in the Bering Sea. United States Seafoods hired Harper through its Seattle office, and its recruiting and hiring coordinator signed the employment contract on behalf of the company. It is undisputed *973 that the vessel’s master did not sign this contract.

Harper and two other crewmembers filed an action on…

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.