## Facts

- Manolis Volyrakis, a Greek citizen and seaman, was injured while serving as a crewmember aboard the M/V ISABELLE near New Orleans, Louisiana.
- The ISABELLE sailed under Greek registry/flag.
- The vessel was owned by Cosmar Compania Naviera, S.A., a Panamanian corporation controlled and managed by Greek nationals.
- Celestial Maritime Corporation, based in New York, acted as an agent providing commercial services such as negotiating cargoes and employment periods.
- Celestial lacked authority over vessel operations and had no power to hire, fire, or manage the ISABELLE’s crew.
- Volyrakis sued in the Eastern District of Louisiana under the Jones Act and general maritime law against the vessel, Cosmar, Celestial, and related entities.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Celestial on the Jones Act claim for lack of an employer–employee relationship.
- The district court dismissed the claims against Cosmar (and the vessel) based on forum non conveniens and determined, under maritime choice-of-law analysis, that U.S. law did not apply.

## Issues

1. Whether Celestial, as a commercial agent without authority over crew hiring, firing, supervision, or vessel operations, could be treated as the seaman’s “employer” for Jones Act liability.
2. Whether the district court properly dismissed claims against the foreign vessel owner on forum non conveniens grounds after concluding that maritime choice-of-law factors favored application of foreign (Greek) law.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Celestial because the record showed no employment relationship or operational control sufficient for Jones Act employer status.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the claims against Cosmar on forum non conveniens grounds.
- Applying the Lauritzen–Rhoditis framework, the court concluded the dominant contacts were foreign (flag/registry, seaman’s nationality, and ownership/management), and the place of injury near New Orleans was an insufficient U.S. contact to justify applying U.S. law or retaining the case.

## Legal Principles

- Jones Act liability requires an employer–employee relationship grounded in supervisory and operational control over the seaman’s work; a commercial agent that does not control hiring, firing, supervision, or vessel operations is not a Jones Act employer.
- In maritime choice-of-law disputes, courts weigh factors including law of the flag, allegiances of the seaman and shipowner, place of the wrongful act, and the shipowner’s base of operations; predominately foreign contacts generally favor foreign law.
- Forum non conveniens dismissal is proper where an adequate alternative forum exists and the forum’s connection to the dispute is limited, even if the injury occurred in U.S. waters.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that a New York-based commercial agent without control over crew or operations could not be sued as a Jones Act employer and that, given the overwhelmingly foreign character of the dispute, the district court acted within its discretion in dismissing the claims against the vessel owner on forum non conveniens grounds.


Volyrakis v. M/V Isabelle, 668 F.2d 863 (5th Cir. 1982)