Free Memorandum in Opposition - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00911-GMS

Document 83

Filed 12/29/2005

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

: : Plaintiffs, : : v. : : DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY : AUTHORITY, and CRAIG SWETT, : : Defendants. : ____________________________________: : JAN KOPACZ, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY : AUTHORITY, : : Defendant. : ____________________________________:

JAN KOPACZ and CATHY KOPACZ,

C.A. No. 04-911 GMS Jury Trial Demanded

C.A. No. 04-1281 GMS

ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THIS ______ day of ____________, 2006, upon consideration of Defendant Swett's Motion in Limine and the response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant Swett's Motion in Limine regarding the admissibility of PIP eligible benefits is DENIED.

Case 1:04-cv-00911-GMS

Document 83

Filed 12/29/2005

Page 2 of 6

IT IS SO ORDERED. _____________________________ The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet United States District Court for the District of Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00911-GMS

Document 83

Filed 12/29/2005

Page 3 of 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Citations Discussion Conclusion ii 1 2

i

Case 1:04-cv-00911-GMS

Document 83

Filed 12/29/2005

Page 4 of 6

TABLE OF CITATIONS Page(s) Cases Chelentis v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., 247 U.S. 372 (1918) The Lottawanna, 88 U.S. 558 (1875) Panama R. Co. v. Johnson, 264 U.S. 375 (1924) 2

1

1

ii

Case 1:04-cv-00911-GMS

Document 83

Filed 12/29/2005

Page 5 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

JAN KOPACZ and CATHY KOPACZ,

: : Plaintiffs, : : v. : : DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY : AUTHORITY, and CRAIG SWETT, : : Defendants. : ____________________________________: : JAN KOPACZ, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY : AUTHORITY, : : Defendant. : ____________________________________:

C.A. No. 04-911 GMS Jury Trial Demanded

C.A. No. 04-1281 GMS

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT SWETT'S MOTION IN LIMINE As discussed in plaintiff's Trial Brief, the maritime jurisdiction attached because plaintiff was injured while engaged in maritime employment upon a vessel in navigable waters. Maritime law is federal law and, as such, it is the supreme law of the land. Furthermore, the national maritime law must be uniform throughout the entire country. The Lottawanna, 88 U.S. 558 (1875). Even Congress is limited in the exercise of its very extensive legislative powers 1

Case 1:04-cv-00911-GMS

Document 83

Filed 12/29/2005

Page 6 of 6

in the maritime world. Panama R. Co. v. Johnson, 264 U.S. 375 (1924). Finally, no state has the power to abolish a recognized maritime rule, for this would run afoul of the uniformity principle and thus subject accidents occurring aboard vessels to the laws of the state in which they happen to be at the time of the accident. Chelentis v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., 247 U.S. 372 (1918). It would be anomalous, to say the least, to have DRBA subject to a different measure of damages than Swett when the same operative facts are involved and both are subject to the maritime jurisdiction. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Swett's Motion in Limine should be denied.

Dated: December 29, 2005

/s/ James J. Woods, Jr. James J. Woods, Jr., P.A. P.O. Box 4635 Greenville, DE 19807 (302) 235-5770 Attorney for Plaintiff, Jan Kopacz E. Alfred Smith, Esquire E. Alfred Smith & Associates 1333 Race Street Second Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 569-8422 Attorney for Plaintiff, Jan Kopacz

2