Cases

575 F.Supp. 1365 (1983) Robert W. RUTHERFORD, Plaintiff, v. SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC., a corporation, Defendant. No. C-83-1433 RPA. United States District Court, N.D. California. November 21, 1983. *1366 *1367 Eugene A. Brodsky, Jarvis, Miller, Brodsky & Baskin, San Francisco, Cal., for plain

478 F.Supp. 1019 (1979) John MILOS, Plaintiff, v. SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC., and R. J. Reynolds Industrial Leasing Corporation, Defendants. No. 76 Civ. 1848 (IBC). United States District Court, S. D. New York. September 25, 1979. *1020 Schneider, Kleinick, Friedman, Miller & Weitz, New York City, for plaintiff; Theodore H. Fried

93 Cal.App.3d 256 (1979) 155 Cal. Rptr. 516 ALFRED J. RAPPENECKER, PLaintiff and Respondent, v. SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC., Defendant and Appellant. CAROL A. SCHMIDT, as Administratrix, etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC., Defendant and Appellant. Docket No. 42337. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two. Ma

MEMORANDUM ** Richard and Karen Schafer (Schafer) appeal from the district court’s summary *953judgment for Sea-Land Service, Inc., et al. (Sea-Land). The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review summary judgment de novo. Estate of Shockley v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co.,

FLETCHER, Circuit Judge, concurring and dissenting: I concur in that portion of the majority opinion that concludes federal labor statutes have not preempted federal maritime common law. I respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s conclusion that a union can bargain away the individual seaman’s common law right to maintenance by agreeing to a wholly inadequate figure

OPINION GRABER, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Sea-Land Service, Inc. (Sea-Land), brought this action against Defendant Lozen International, LLC (Lozen), to recover money owed under a shipping contract. Lozen counterclaimed for damages resulting from Sea-Land’s failure to timely deliver one of the shipments at issue. The parties settled and dismissed Sea-Land’s claim, but they were unable to reach an agreement

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER McAVOY, Chief Judge. I. BACKGROUND The present case is an in personam action brought by the plaintiff, SEA-LAND, against the defendant POWERTEX, pursuant to admiralty and maritime law, seeking the payment of a certain sum relating to the transport of goods. In the present motions, the plaintiff seeks an Order of this Court dismissing the action or sta

MEMORANDUM OPINION KAPLAN, District Judge. This is an action to recover unpaid- shipping charges in which the defendant counterclaims for alleged loss of all or part of a different cargo while it was in transit. The matter is before the Court on plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and defendant’s cross-motion for an extension of time. Facts The complaint a

OPINION AND ORDER CASELLAS, District Judge. This case is before the Court on defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment (Dockets #8 and 21), which were duly opposed (Dockets # 13 and 23). Since the arguments which defendants advanced in their respective motions are virtually identical, we will address them as one. Defendants essentially aver that plaintiffs’ complaint should be dismissed because (a) p

285 F.3d 808 SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC., Plaintiff,v.LOZEN INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant.Lozen International, LLC, Counterclaimant-Appellant,v.Sea-Land Service, Inc., Counter-defendant-Appellee. No. 00-57058. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted February 13, 2002. Filed April 3, 2002.

CARL E. STEWART, Circuit Judge: Before the court is a jurisdictional dispute involving two unions. The disputes began roughly in 1994 and involve the apportionment of employees assigned to work the gate at Sea-Land’s Houston port facility. Defendant-Appellee Sea-Land Service, Inc. (“Sea-Land”) is a party to *568

LYNCH, Circuit Judge. In these consolidated cases, two Puerto Rico corporations, Cerámica Europa II, Inc. and Cerámica Europa Hato Rey, Inc. (collectively “defendants”), appeal from the denial of their motions to set aside default judgments under Rules 55(c) and 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 We affir

STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge: In 1993 the United States Maritime Administration (“MarAd”) issued two orders (the “modification orders”) deleting from sev *642 eral of its own previous orders a clause that it had become convinced was legally invalid. In No. 93-1846 Sea-Land Service, Inc. (“Sea-

Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge MacKINNON. *751 MacKINNON, Senior Circuit Judge: Petitioner Dart Containerline Company, Ltd. (“Dart’ 1 ) appeals from an order of the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), whi

OPINION WOLIN, District Judge. J & W Import/Export, Inc. (“J & W”) hired Sea-Land Services, Inc. (“Sea-Land”) to ship containers of garlic for J & W from China to the United States and then to Puerto Rico. J & W claims that Sea-Land improperly stored the garlic and fraudulently misrepresented its ability and willingness to store the garlic properly. J & W filed its complaint

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ALPHA CONTRACTING SERVICES, . INC., : C.A. No. Kl 8C-08-034 NEP In and for Kent County Plaintiff, V. PROFESSIONAL RETAIL SERVICES, : INC., and ANN, INC. ' Defendants. wl Submitted: December 21, 2018 Decided: January 9, 2019 Before the Court is Defendant Ann, Inc.’s (hereinal°cer “Ann”) Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff Alpha Contracting Services, LLC’s (hereinafter “Alpha”) response. Alpha filed its Complaint on August 17, 2018, against Ann a

137 F.3d 640 1998 A.M.C. 1926, 329 U.S.App.D.C. 108 SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC., Petitioner,v.DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., Respondents.SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC., Petitioner,v.FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents,American President Lines, Ltd., Intervenor Nos. 93-1846, 97-1083 to 97-1085. United States Court of Ap

*918 HAYS, Circuit Judge. The International Longshoremen’s Association appeals from the dismissal of its complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that it may lawfully receive certain moneys from the defendants under an agreement between th

271 F.Supp.2d 429 (2003) Theodore STOMA, Plaintiff, v. MILLER MARINE SERVICES, INC., Defendant. No. CV 01-1843(ADS)(ARL). United States District Court, E.D. New York. July 18, 2003. Tabak & Mellusi by Sheldon Tabak, Esq., Ralph J. Mellusi, Esq., New York City, for Plaintiff. Badiak Will & Ruddy, LLP by Patrick J. Corbett, Esq., New York City, for Defe

ORDER McDONALD, District Judge. Pending before the Court is the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of Defendant David Spreen, d/b/a Spreen Import and Export, Ltd. Having considered the arguments of the parties and the applicable law, the Court finds for the reasons discussed below that the Motion should be DENIED. Fa