§

46 U.S.C. § 30101

Section 30101 - Extension of jurisdiction to cases of damage or injury on land
Section 30101 - Extension of jurisdiction to cases of damage or injury on land

5 Citing briefs

  1. Rios v. The United States of America

    MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed January 18, 2017

    Case 1:16-cv-10191-DJC Document 16-1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 9 of 14 10 Regardless of which of the dates noted above is deemed to be the date upon which the claim was “presented in writing to the agency owning or operating the vessel causing the injury or damage,” it is clear that Mr. Rios filed suit prior to the expiration of the six-month waiting period. 46 U.S.C. § 30101(c)(2). This is so even when allowing Mr. Rios the generous presumption of employing the date of the August 7 letter as the triggering event for the six-month waiting period.4 Even in that best case scenario for 4 Such an approach presumes that the four addressees received the letter on August 7, and ignores the fact that the letter was not addressed to the appropriate agency.

  2. The People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al

    Supplemental Brief re Supplemental Brief, [Correction of Dkt. 131] Plaintiffs' Supplemental Reply Brief on Navigable Waters of the United States

    Filed February 19, 2018

    The location test requires either (1) that the tort “take[] place on navigable waters” or (2) that the injury be “caused by a vessel on navigable waters.” See Ali v. Rogers, 780 F.3d 1229, 1235 (9th 2015); 46 U.S.C. § 30101(a). The maritime connection test requires demonstrating that the activity giving rise to the incident has a “substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity.”

  3. Paulsboro Natural Gas Pipeline Company Llc et al v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company, Llc

    Second MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed September 2, 2016

    61) ¶ 19. Paulsboro filed suit against Great Lakes on November 19, 2015, invoking this Court’s admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333, and the Admiralty Jurisdiction Extension Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 30101. Paulsboro Compl.

  4. Lukowicz v. General Electric Company et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed December 1, 2016

    Maritime jurisdiction "[e]xtends to and includes cases of injury or damage, to person or property, caused by a vessel on navigable waters, even though the injury or damage is done or consummated on land." 46 U.S.C. § 30101(a). District courts must apply substantive maritime law if they have jurisdiction even where a plaintiff assets a state law claim.

  5. In Re: Asbestos Prod v. Coffin Turbo Pump, et al

    MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS WITHOUT PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT RELATED TO ASBESTOS EXPOSURE AND MOTIONS BASED ON PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS OF SYMTOMATIC INJURIES RELATED TO ASBESTOS EXPOSURE INCLUDING LUNG AND OTHER CANCERS LISTED IN EXHIBIT B. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 8/7/2012;

    Filed August 7, 2012

    All of the Plaintiffs whose cases are subject to the2 present motions to dismiss are or were merchant marine seamen during the time of their alleged exposures to asbestos. Some claims are Jones Act claims under 46 U.S.C. §§ 30101-30106 (2006), while others sound in general maritime law. 3 Most cases on the maritime docket involve multiple1 defendants, and in some cases more than one defendant filed a motion to dismiss.