Matute v. Lloyd Bermuda Lines

Procoast Navigation (Procoast) owned a cargo ship called the Lloyd Bermuda. Lloyd Bermuda Lines, Ltd. (LBL) (defendant) was the exclusive time charterer of the Lloyd Bermuda. Under the time-charter agreement, Procoast staffed the Lloyd Bermuda and was responsible for its condition while LBL used it as a shipping vessel. Procoast engaged Trans-Mar Agencies (Trans-Mar) (defendant) as its agent to help with immigration procedures implicated by staffing the ship. The Lloyd Bermuda’s captain, who worked for Procoast, hired Oscar Matute (plaintiff) to work as an oiler on the ship’s crew. According to Matute, all documentation he received pertaining to his job, including his hiring letter, were made by Trans-Mar rather than Procoast. Matute began suffering from increasingly severe injury to his right eye while working on the crew. After complaining to the captain and another Procoast employee, Matute was furnished with medical care, but the doctors could not repair his eye. Eventually, Matute was fired. Matute filed for maintenance and cure benefits against Procoast under the Jones Act, but his complaint was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Matute then filed a claim against LBL and Trans-Mar under the Jones Act under a theory that they were de facto owners of the Lloyd Bermuda. The district court granted LBL and Trans-Mar’s motion for summary judgment, and Matute appealed.