United States Ninth Circuit

Summary judgment against plaintiff finding that his Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims against defendant were time-barred and that his maintenance and cure claim was barred by laches is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) plaintiff could not establish the requirements for either equitable tolling or equitable estoppel; 2) the court declines to create, under the -wards of the court- doctrine for seamen, a broad fiduciary duty that would require employers to affirmatively disclose and explain federal causes of action to their employees; but 3) the district court erred in its laches determination with regards to the maintenance and cure claim.

Appellate Information

• Argued 05/03/2006
• Decided 12/27/2006
• Published 12/27/2006

Judges

• Before REINHARDT, McKEOWN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Eric Dickman, Injury at Sea, Seattle, WA, for the appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Philip W. Sanford and Daniel S. Potts, Holmes Weddle & Barcott, Seattle, WA, for the appellees.