Dennis v. Calm C's, Inc. et al, No. 2:2010cv00876 - Document 146 (E.D. La. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 67 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 8/3/11. (mmv, )

Download PDF
Dennis v. Calm C's, Inc. et al Doc. 146 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VICTOR DENNIS * * * * * VERSUS CALM C’S INC., ET AL. CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-876 SECTION “B”(1) ORDER AND REASONS For the following reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. No. 67) is DENIED. There exist genuine issues of material fact making summary judgment improper on Plaintiff’s lost wages claim. Plaintiff’s Maritime Marine Licence has not been revoked, nor has Plaintiff been charged with use of a dangerous drug by the Coast Guard. At the time of the accident, Plaintiff’s license had not been revoked. Material factual disputes remain on whether or not Plaintiff was under the influence of drugs or other substances at the time of the sued upon accident and, if so, the extent to which such usage caused or contributed to his injuries. Evidence that Plaintiff lied on his application when asked about previous drug convictions does not per se bar recovery. Under limited circumstances, an injured plaintiff may still be able to sue his employer for negligence under the Jones Act despite lying on an employment questionnaire. Brown v. Parker Drilling Dockets.Justia.com Offshore Corp., Plaintiff’s 410 F.3d 166, misrepresentations on 178-179 his (5th employment Cir. 2005).1 application certainly damages his credibility. However, summary disposition of his claims are not warranted at this stage of the proceedings. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 3RD day of August, 2011. ________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 See Still v. Norkfolk Western Railway Co., 358 U.S. 35, 44-46 (1961) (holding that “employees who become such through other kinds of fraud, although possibly subject to termination through rescission of the contract of employment, must be recognized for purposes of suites under” the FELA, and thus the Jones Act). See also Reed v. Iowa Marine & Repair Corp., 143 F.R.D. 648, 651 (E.D. La. 1992)(holding that “the Supreme Court has effectively foreclosed any argument that misrepresentations in an application for employment might void the necessary employment relation”).

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.