
USCA1 Opinion

	




          September 21, 1994                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-1522                                  DANIEL COLON, JR.,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.           APEX MARINE CORPORATION C/O WESTCHESTER SHIPPING COMPANY, INC.,        and WESTCHESTER MARINE, INC. and WESTCHESTER MARINE SHIPPING COMPANY,            INC. and VERTIGO, INC., d/b/a TILLIES KING SHIPPING COMPANY,                                 Defendant, Appellees.                                 ____________________                                     ERRATA SHEET            The  opinion  of this  Court  issued  on  September  15, 1994,  is        amended as follows:            On cover  sheet, replace  "[Hon. Jacob  Hagopian, U.S.  Magistrate                                                              ________________        Judge]" with "[Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]".        _____                                  ___________________                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-1522                                  DANIEL COLON, JR.,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.           APEX MARINE CORPORATION C/O WESTCHESTER SHIPPING COMPANY, INC.,        and WESTCHESTER MARINE, INC. and WESTCHESTER MARINE SHIPPING COMPANY,            INC. and VERTIGO, INC., d/b/a TILLIES KING SHIPPING COMPANY,                                 Defendant, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND                      [Hon. Jacob Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]                                           ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,                                        _____________                            Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,                                     ____________________                             and Young,* District Judge.                                         ______________                                 ____________________            Carroll E. Ayers for appellant.            ________________            Gordon  Arnott  with whom  Gregory O'Neill,  Hill,  Betts &  Nash,            ______________             _______________   ____________________        Charles N. Redihan,  Jr., Thomas C.  Plunkett and Kiernan,  Plunkett &        ________________________  ___________________     ____________________        Redihan  were  on brief  for  appellees  Apex  Marine Corporation  and        _______        Westchester Marine Shipping Company, Inc.                                 ____________________                                  September 21, 1994                                 ____________________                                    ____________________        *Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.                 Per  Curiam.   This case  presents an  interesting issue                 ___________            concerning the reach of the "scope of employment" requirement            under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.    688, as applied to a unique            set  of facts.    In explaining  its  decision to  grant  the            defense  motion for  summary judgment,  Colon v.  Apex Marine                                                    _____     ___________            Corp., 832  F. Supp. 508  (D.R.I. 1993),  the district  court            ____            issued a decision thoroughly analyzing the precedents and the            pertinent facts.   Although  the legal question  presented is            open to reasonable debate, we agree with the district court's            resolution  and do  not think  that we  can improve  upon the            reasoning set  forth in  its decision.   Accordingly, on  the            central  issue  we affirm  on the  grounds  set forth  in the            decision of the district court.                 The only remaining issue is  the claim that the district            court abused its discretion in refusing to allow an amendment            to the  complaint to  assert a new  cause of action  based on            unseaworthiness.    This case  relates  to  an incident  that            occurred  in December  1987; the  defense motion  for summary            judgment  was filed in November 1992; and the motion to amend            the  complaint was  filed only  after  the district  court in                                            _____            September 1993 granted the motion  for summary judgment.  The            motion  gave no  adequate reason  to excuse  this substantial            delay in moving to amend.  Under the circumstances, we do not            think  that  the  district  court abused  its  discretion  in            denying the motion as untimely.                                         -2-                                         -2-                 Affirmed.                 ________                                         -3-                                         -3-
