James

James v. Wards Cove Packing Co.

Good Law
209 F. App'x 648
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 1, 2006No. 05-35337California1,147 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Neal James appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Wards Cove Packing Co., Inc. in his suit for recovery under the Jones Act, 46 App. U.S.C. § 688(a), and the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”), 33 U.S.C. § 905 (b). Because the plain meaning of § 905(b) bars James’s recovery, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of that claim. We conclude, however, that the record contains evidence of material issues of fact as to whether James is a seaman for purposes of the Jones Act. We therefore reverse the district court’s order dismissing the Jones Act claim and remand for trial.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the district court’s grant of summary judgment, which we review de novo. Diruzza v. County of Tehama, 323 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir.2003). Summary judgment is only proper if no material issues of fact exist for trial. Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 441 (9th Cir.1995). We view the underlying facts in the light most favorable to James, the party opposing the motion. Ribitzki v. Canmar Reading & Bates, Ltd., 111 F.3d 658 , 662 (9th Cir.1997).

I. Jones Act Negligence

The district court improperly…

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.