Absolute Nevada, LLC v. Grand Majestic Riverboat Company LLC
- P. Castel
- 1:19-cv-11479
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In Absolute Nevada v. Grand Majestic, Judge Castel denied Capt. Joseph Baer’s motion to reconsider a contempt ruling based on Labor Department findings.
Capt. Joseph L. Baer, who filed the motion as a nonparty representing himself; the ruling left the court’s earlier contempt determination unaltered.
What happened
Absolute Nevada, LLC v. Grand Majestic Riverboat Company LLC involved a reconsideration motion filed by Capt. Joseph L. Baer, who was not a party to the case and represented himself. He asked the court to revisit its September 1, 2020 ruling finding him in contempt.
Baer argued that new findings from the U.S. Department of Labor supported his position that he worked independently for Absolute Nevada and was protected by the Seaman’s Protection Act. The Labor Department found that Baer was an employee covered by that law, but dismissed his complaint as untimely; the letter allowed him to object and request a hearing.
The court denied the motion for reconsideration. Judge P. Kevin Castel stated that the Secretary of Labor’s findings did not alter the bases for the court’s September 1, 2020 ruling finding Baer in contempt.
The detailed version
- Absolute Nevada, LLC v. Grand Majestic Riverboat Company LLC · No. 1:19-cv-11479
- P. Castel
- June 9, 2021
Background
Absolute Nevada, LLC sued Grand Majestic Riverboat Company LLC. The opinion text includes a January 2020 stipulation and order between those two parties concerning the vessel M/V Americana. Capt. Joseph L. Baer, who described himself as a nonparty to the case, later filed a seaman’s lien and was found in contempt in the court’s September 1, 2020 order.
Baer moved for reconsideration of that contempt ruling. He relied on a May 17, 2021 letter from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The letter stated that Absolute Nevada was a commercial vessel owner, that Baer had been employed by Absolute Nevada as a contractor and was an employee under the Seaman’s Protection Act, and that both were covered by that law. The agency nevertheless dismissed Baer’s retaliation complaint as untimely because it was filed more than 180 days after the original alleged adverse action. The letter stated that Baer and Absolute Nevada had 30 days to object and request a hearing before an administrative law judge.
Baer’s arguments
Baer argued that the Labor Department’s findings supported his position that his work was separate from the charter arrangement and the stipulation between Absolute Nevada and Grand Majestic. He also argued that he was not a signatory to the stipulation, that his conduct was protected by the Seaman’s Protection Act, and that he therefore was not in contempt. These were Baer’s arguments in support of reconsideration; the opinion does not state that the court adopted them.
Ruling
The court denied Baer’s motion for reconsideration. The order states that the Secretary of Labor’s findings did not alter the bases for the court’s September 1, 2020 opinion and order finding Baer in contempt. The text provided does not state that the court vacated, reversed, or modified that earlier ruling. It also does not state that the court independently decided the merits of Baer’s Seaman’s Protection Act claim.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.