FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 15 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARK LEEROY LYON, No. 12-35671
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01204-BAT
v.
MEMORANDUM*
F/V ENDURANCE, O.N. 276678, Her
Engines, Machinery, Appurtenances, etc.,
In Rem; JOHN LIDDICOAT;
LIDDICOAT FISHERIES INC, In
Personam,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Brian Tsuchida, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 11, 2013**
Seattle, Washington
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before: M. SMITH and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and WALTER, District
Judge.***
Plaintiff-Appellant Mark Lyon appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees on Lyon’s admiralty claims for
seaman’s injury. The district court held that Lyon fully understood his rights at the
time he executed the seaman’s release agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
“Applicable law requires that we scrutinize the validity of a seaman’s release
under principles of admiralty law analogous to the duty owed by a fiduciary to a
beneficiary, not solely under principles of contract law.” Orsini v. O/S
SEABROOKE O.N., 247 F.3d 953, 959–60 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Garrett v.
Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U.S. 239, 247 (1942)). To determine whether a
seaman fully understands his rights at the time a seaman’s release is executed, the
court considers: (1) the adequacy of the consideration; (2) the nature of the medical
advice available to the seaman at the time of signing the release; and (3) the nature
of the legal advice available to the seaman at the time of signing the release.
Garrett, 317 U.S. at 248.
***
The Honorable Donald E. Walter, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
2
The district court did not err in determining that the consideration provided
for in the release was adequate, based on the undisputed evidence regarding the
nature and extent of Lyon’s injuries. Additionally, no reasonable juror could have
concluded that the consideration paid by Defendants-Appellees was never received
by Lyon, as he claimed.
The district court also did not err in determining that Lyon received
sufficient medical advice regarding the extent of his injuries and the disability
resulting from those injuries. The evidence demonstrates that Lyon visited the
doctor on several occasions over the course of his treatment, and had numerous
opportunities to inform himself about the nature and extent of his injuries.
Finally, the district court did not err in determining that Lyon was
sufficiently aware of his legal rights at the time he executed the release. Although
Lyon was not represented by counsel at the time he executed the release, the facts
surrounding the execution suggest that Lyon was an informed party who bargained
for favorable terms in the release agreement, and later treated the agreement as
valid when he requested reimbursements for medical expenses through September
2010.
AFFIRMED.
3