Jonathan Thames does not see himself categorically as a “litigator” or a “trial lawyer,” though he is both of those things. He views himself as a problem solver, and his role is to swiftly marshal the relevant facts, critically evaluate his clients’ options, make wholly unvarnished and timely recommendations, and execute the plan - whether it be resolution on a commercial basis or vindication of a decision or reputation by trial.

Focused on Maritime and Transportation Litigation

Jonathan’s broad maritime practice includes litigating marine and inland marine cargo claims on behalf of both carrier and cargo interests; litigating marine Hull and Machinery claims on behalf of underwriters and vessel interests; defending vessel interests in Jones Act and other marine P&I claims; and defending terminal operators and other marine contractors in dockside catastrophic personal injury and death claims. 

He also frequently advises on and litigates marine and non-marine insurance coverage disputes, provides opinions on the application of American law in foreign maritime proceedings, and counsels interested parties in charter-party issues. 

Accomplished Litigator for Hospitality, Contractor and Government Entities

In the civil arena, Jonathan defends wineries, casinos, refineries, specialist industrial contractors, heavy-lift and rigging contractors, and local government entities in catastrophic personal injury and death claims, regulatory violation claims and pollution/chemical exposure claims. 

Regardless of the issue, Jonathan’s clients - insurers, business entities and individuals – come to him time and again because of his demonstrated ability to understand their problem and his dedication to working to solve it.

Jonathan Thames' representative matters include:

• The Continental Ins. Co. v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd., et al., 542 F.Supp.2d 1031, 2008 AMC 946 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (Clarified COGSA completely preempts state law causes of action)
• Golden Pisces Inc. v. Fred Wahl Construction, 495 F.3d 1078, 2007 A.M.C. 1982 (9th Cir. 2007) (Convinced trial court that repair contract barring consequential damages and allowing prevailing party attorneys' fees was void, and recovered $500,000 for negligent shipyard repair plus consequential damages for lost fishing revenues. On appeal, 9th Circuit declined to create new admiralty attorneys' fee rule)
• Petro-Hunt L.L.C. v. United States, 179 F. Supp. 2d 669; 155 Oil & Gas Rep. 237, (W.D. La.); reversed and remanded, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 5948 (5th Cir.) (sued U.S. Interior Department – Bureau of Land Management over right to lease mineral rights to several million acres of national forest lands in northern Louisiana)
• Steel Coils, Inc. v. M/V LAKE MARION, 2001 AMC 115; 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, 8482 (E.D. La.), aff'd 331 F.3d 422 (5th Cir.) (broadened carrier's duties to protect cargo in its custody)
• Caringal v. Karteria Shipping, Ltd., 2001 AMC 1236 (E.D. La.) (Filipino seaman's Jones Act suit dismissed under Foreign Arbitration Act based on arbitration clause in seaman's contract)
• Henry v. Tidewater Marine, Inc., 2000 WL 739273; 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8303 (E.D. La.) (though removal of Jones Act suits is statutorily prohibited, suit held independently removable under OCSLA)
• Trans-World Ltd. v. Chodiev, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2202 (E.D. La.) and Trans-World Ltd. v. Chodiev, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6387 (E.D. La.) (litigated title to $18 million cargo of ferrochrome alloy for client Swiss metals trader)
• Gilbert v. Eckerd Drugs, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10529 (E.D. La.) (ADA violation dismissed on summary judgment)
• Ware v. Holmes, 719 So.2d 1147 (La. App.) (clarified existing state workers compensation law)