Egorov Puchinsky, Afanasiev & Juring v. Terriberry, Carroll & Yancey: The Practice of Law Is Not Within the Fifth Circuit's Admiralty Jurisdiction

Recent Development by Ryan M. Pierce

When the M/V PAVLOGRAD was seized by court order for a creditor of the vessel's owner, the Russian crew of the vessel was ousted from its employment without payment of its outstanding wages. Two days later, the crew hired the Russian law firm of Egorov, Puchinsky, Afanasiev & Juring (Egorov) to represent it for its claims for back and penalty wages. Egorov obtained the exclusive right to settle the claims and would receive fifty percent of any recovery above the face value of the back wages. A few weeks later, the M/V PAVLOGRAD was sold at a sheriff's sale to Ambery Maritime Ltd. (Ambery), which retained local legal representation from the law firm of Terriberry, Carroll & Yancey (Terriberry).

Because Ambery wished to hire the newly unemployed crew, Ambery, acting through Terriberry, paid the crew its outstanding wages. Egorov, the crew's law firm, was not given notice of this transaction. The payment from Ambery and Terriberry was made aboard the M/V PAVLOGRAD while it was afloat in navigable waters. Not only had Egorov been discharged by the crew, but it had not been paid for its legal services. As a result, Egorov filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging that Ambery and Terriberry had tortiously interfered with Egorov's contract with the crew of the M/V PAVLOGRAD. The district court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, holding that Egorov's claim did not fall within admiralty jurisdiction and did not state a claim for which relief could be granted under Louisiana tort law. Agreeing with the district court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiffs' claim for tortious interference with a contract (1) did not meet the “locality” requirement for admiralty jurisdiction and (2) did not meet the requirements of Louisiana's limited cause of action for tortious interference with a contract. Egorov, Puchinsky, Afanasiev & Juring v. Terriberry, Carroll & Yancey, 183 F.3d 453, 457, 1999 AMC 2573, 2576-78 (5th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).


About the Author

Ryan M. Pierce.

Citation

75 Tul. L. Rev. 823 (2001)