Background:
Before this Court is the Motion of defendant, Crown Bay Marina ("Crown Bay"), to dismiss the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

One or about January 6, 2005, Kelly Mala ("Mala") went to Crown Bay to buy fuel for his boat. After the boat's tank was filled, the pump failed to automatically shut off and as a result, fuel spilled into the hull of Mala's boat. The attendant, employee of Crown Bay, verbally acknowledged that the pump was not functioning properly. 

After leaving Crown Bay, Mala's boat ignited and Mala and his boat were burned, Mala seeks $28,000 for damage to the boat, and $20 million for pain and suffering.  Charlene Mala, Kelly Mala's wife, claims loss of consortium.

Mala has plead both diversity and admiratly jurisdiction.

Issue:
Will the Court grant defendant's 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss?

Held:
In deciding a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all inferences from those facts in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. 

Moreover, documents filed by a pro se litigant are to be liberally construed, but a pro se complaint must be held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. 

Crown Bay argues that Mala incorrectly filed for federal jurisdiction under diversity jurisdiction. However, this Court holds that Mala also filed, correctly, under Admiralty jurisdiction. 

Mala claimed that Crown Bay was negligent which led to his injuries. Mala claims Crown bay had a duty of reasonable care toward him, Crown Bay breached that duty when it failed to fix, or warn him prior to use, of the broken gas pump, furthermore Mala claims the malfunctioning gas nozzle caused gas to spray on his boat causing a fire. Accordingly, the Court denies Crown's motion to dismiss Mala's claim of negligent maintenance. 

Mala further claims Crown Bay is liable for negligent training or supervision. Plaitniff claims the attendant was an employee, the attendant did not react properly to the fuel spill, Crown Bay failed to adequately train the attendant in proper fuel spill remediation. Furthermore, Mala assert attendant's reaction to the spill made the situation more dangerous and the boat exploded as a result. 

All these assertions, according to this Court, are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Crown Bay's motion to dismiss was denied with respect to the negligent hiring, training, or supervision count. 

Finally, Charlene Mala, Kelly Mala's wife, claims loss of consortium. However, this Court held that loss of consortium is not a remedy under personal injury governed by general maritime law and is therefore not a viable cause of action in a maritime personal injury case. 

Comment:
When filing pro se, or representing themselves, plaintiffs run the risk of improperly pleading or asserting a defense and having their case dismissed. While pro se plaintiffs are given the benefit of the doubt by the courts, it is important to retain experienced legal counsel.