Legal Opinion
Jose v. M/V FIR GROVE
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided October 11, 1990No. Civ. 90-6028-MAPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MARSH, District Judge.
Plaintiffs are fourteen foreign seamen who filed this action seeking to recover back wages and penalties pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 10313 as well as compensatory and punitive damages for alleged fraudulent labor practices. 1 Defendants move for reconsideration of my previous order denying their motion for partial summary judgment regarding plaintiffs’ ability to claim penalty wages under the U.S. Shipping Act. In addition, defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims for “blacklisting” for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and move for partial summary judgment…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of ClevelandSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Finley v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Jose v. M/V FIR GROVEDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1991
- Jose v. M/V FIR GROVEDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1992
- Vidovic v. Losinjska Plovidba Oour BroadarstvoDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1994