Fifth Circuit: Marquette Trans v. Navigation Mrtm

 Although the appellant LLC did not sufficiently establish diversity jurisdiction by pleading the citizenship of all of it members, the fact that its claims sound in admiralty is sufficient for appellate jurisdiction, and the pleading should be amended on remand.

As state harbor pilotage regulation is a statutory exception to the general preemption of admiralty, the higher burden of proof under state law is not preempted by the preponderance standard of admiralty.

The pretrial objection to the admission of the evidence sufficiently preserved the issue for appeal; the argument in a separate pretrial motion that the evidence was inadmissible as summary evidence did not. Challenge to the admission of the accident reconstruction was harmless, as there was ultimately no claim that it was inaccurate or unreliable,

Motion to strike the jury demand for lack of the amount in controversy and an implied consent to proceed in admiralty doesn't preserve for appeal a claim that the jury trial was error because of lack of diversity.  Also no showing of harm or constitutional violation.

Challenge to jury finding of lack of negligence and award of damages was forfeited for lack of a post-judgment motion for judgment as a matter of law.  Evidence was sufficient, even under the higher standard of proof.

Court appropriately limited expert testimony.

Marquette Trans v. Navigation Mrtm

First Circuit: US v. De Jesus-Gomez

 

In a civil forfeiture proceeding in Admiralty, discovery sanctions are slightly more severe than in the civil analogue.  The Court must weigh severity, repetition, and deliberateness of the violation must be considered.  No prejudice need be shown.  The court did not abuse its discretion in striking the late response and issuing default judgment against a vessel whose claimants asserted a Fifth Amendment exception to civil interrogatories, having previously asserted the exception in a motion to stay that was denied without prejudice.  Although one of the claimants was being held in solitary confinement during the discovery period, the other claimant was not so encumbered.

US v. De Jesus-Gomez

Eleventh Circuit: Myra Corley, et al v. Long-Lewis, Inc., et al

As governing circuit precedent on the question is in conflict with earlier circuit precedent that it doesn't distinguish or overrule, the earlier precedent governs -- voluntary dismissal without prejudice is therefore a sufficiently final order for the purposes of appeal, since it removed the case from the court's consideration.

Interlocutory denial of motion to reconsider by the courts of another circuit that eventuates in a voluntary dismissal with prejudice within the circuit is considered only in the context of the appeal from the voluntary dismissal; the implied challenge to the other circuit's courts does not make the subsequent decisions within the circuit unreviewable.

Appellant is sufficiently adverse for purposes of standing to final decision below.  Although it resulted from appellant's motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice, the decision contained merged elements of earlier adverse interlocutory decisions.

No abuse of discretion in denying motion to shift governing law to Admiralty when made in motion to reconsider.

Myra Corley, et al v. Long-Lewis, Inc., et al

Second Circuit: Leopard Marine & Trading, Ltd. v. Easy Street Ltd.

As jurisdiction over an in personam action under the Declaratory Judgment Act seeking a declaration of rights in a maritime lien is merely derivative of the jurisdiction over the lien, arrest or presence of the res is a matter of service, not jurisdictional, and jurisdiction can be gained by means of a forum selection clause in a contract for supplies between the operator of the vessel and the claimant on the lien.

As the present quasi in rem suit is an in personam action, abstention for comity in light of a foreign in rem action on the same res is not required.

Although the conduct of the enforcement of the lien is within the present forum's statute of limitations, which is generally held to be the common law rule, equitable considerations permitted the district court to extinguish the lien for laches -- due to the delay, the owner of the ship was unable to enforce a lien against the cargo carried by the operator who had incurred the fuel bill.

Dissent: Maritime liens are stricti juris, and arise from the custody of the res.  The interpleader precedent cited by the majority relies on consent to federal jurisdiction, with the lien then found to be inextricably intertwined.  The operator's consent to the forum selection provision is distinct from a general consent to federal jurisdiction, and jurisdiction cannot be manufactured by consent of the parties.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b424590-d624-49bf-bc3b-f406f744f01c/2/doc/16-1356_complete_pdf.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b424590-d624-49bf-bc3b-f406f744f01c/2/hilite/

Second Circuit: NG Bank N.V. v. M/V Maritime King

As the the equitable power to modify an existing maritime lien is essential to preventing the abuse of the lien, court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the interest rate on the lien.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/05194beb-c7ca-4533-89f8-3cdc4043f522/8/doc/16-3944_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/05194beb-c7ca-4533-89f8-3cdc4043f522/8/hilite/

Fifth Circuit: Valero Marketing & Supply Co. v. M/V Almi Sun, IMO

Subcontractor cannot assert lien against vessel, as the vessel did not control the selection or the performance of the subcontractor, and under the statute, a lien only arises against a counterparty to a contract for necessities, or a subcontractor whose selection or performance was controlled by the vessel.

Dissent: There was implicit approval of the selection of the subcontractor.  Disputed question of whether this creates a circuit split.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-30194-CV0.pdf

Second Circuit: ING Bank N.V. v. M/V TEMARA

A statutory maritime lien arises by operation of law when a vessel contracts for covered supplies and the supplies are delivered pursuant to the contract, regardless of whether the eventual provision occurred through a chain of intermediaries.

The subcontractor is operating pursuant to another's agreement with the party to the contract with the vessel, and therefore the subcontractor cannot assert a lien against the vessel.

Equitable remedies such as unjust enrichment are not a basis for a judgment against the vessel, as the lien is an in rem action.

Error for the District Court to issue a sua sponte summary judgment absent notice to parties where a reasonable possibility existed of a factual dispute.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/594b7f87-3c10-48a4-8c8c-42b1d446d0a8/2/doc/16-3923_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/594b7f87-3c10-48a4-8c8c-42b1d446d0a8/2/hilite/

Eleventh Circuit: Minott v. Brunello

Refusal of District Court to issue a warrant in rem for arrest of the vessel can be independently appealed.

Operation of the vessel in navigating the waters was sufficient maritime activity to give the court statutory in rem jurisdiction.

The lien against the vessel was perfected by the harm of the tort.

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201810374.pdf

Eighth Circuit: Blake Marine Group v. CarVal Investors LLC

Choice of Law, Admiralty, FRCP


Although application of the (Erie) forum's law would allow greater recovery in the forum state, as the forum state borrows the statute of limitations from the state providing the relevant substantive law, the forum state's choice of law rules minimize the importance of recoveries other than those involved in the case, and the law of the plaintiff's state should therefore control.

Insufficient basis for claim of laches under Admiralty jurisdiction, as there's no showing of navigable waters.

Claims of fraud pleaded with insufficient particularity to justify an equitable toll to the statute of limitations.


Blake Marine Group  v.  CarVal Investors LLC

Fifth Circuit: Claimant ID 100068236 v. BP Exploration & Prodn, I

Contracts


Under admiralty rules for contracts, switching from selling cars to leasing cars is insufficient to qualify as a start-up business.

District court was correct to deny discretionary review on the question.


Claimant ID 100068236 v. BP Exploration & Prodn, I