Admiralty Case Summaries
[09/03] Allied Maritime, Inc. v. Descatrade SA
An order vacating the process of maritime attachment and garnishment issued on April 15, 2009 attaching defendant's assets to secure a putative foreign arbitral award and dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed where the district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over defendant’s bank account in Paris, France, the suspense account created by the bank in response to the attachment order, and any other intangible property arising from an electronic funds transfer.
[08/31] Sinoying Logistics Pte Ltd. v. Yi Da Xin Trading Corp.
In an action seeking to attach defendant's property in New York as pre-judgment security for a pending arbitration in Hong Kong, dismissal of the action for lack of personal jurisdiction is affirmed where the district court did not err in declining to fashion an equitable remedy in circumstances where it was clear that the original attachment order could not be sustained in light of Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., 585 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2009).
[08/24] Combo Maritime, Inc. v. U.S. United Bulk Terminal, LLC
In an action for contribution and indemnity, and property damage, based on a barge breakaway, summary judgment for third-party defendant is reversed where there were insufficient findings in the record to determine whether the passing vessel presumption should have been applied against third-party defendant.
[08/20] Uralde v. US
In an action against the U.S. claiming that plaintiff's wife died as a result of the Coast Guard's failure to provide her access to timely medical treatment after she was injured during the Coast Guard’s interdiction of their vessel, the dismissal of the action is reversed where, because the Suits in Admiralty Act did not include a reciprocity requirement, plaintiff had no obligation to demonstrate that Cuba would allow Americans to sue its government on similar claims.
[08/12] Scanscot Shipping Servs GmbH v. Metales Tracomex LTDA
In plaintiff's appeal from the district court's order vacating the attachment of certain electronic fund transfers (EFTs) held by garnishee Wachovia Bank in New York City, which the district court had previously attached pursuant to Rule B of the Supplemental Admiralty Rules for Certain Admiralty Maritime Claims of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the order is affirmed where: 1) EFTs for which the defendant is both the originator and the beneficiary are not the property of the defendant and, therefore, may not be attached pursuant to Rule B; 2) when an intermediary bank responds to an order of attachment, later determined to be wrongful, by sequestering the wrongly attached funds in a non-EFT suspense account, a creditor may not then reattach those funds in the new account; and 3) Jaldhi's retroactivity was not subject to a case-by-case rebuttable presumption.
[08/11] In re: Fitzgerald Marine & Repair
In a defendant's appeal in a personal injury action from summary judgment to a third-party defendant on defendant's cross-claim for contractual indemnity, a denial of summary judgment to defendant on third-party defendant's common law indemnity and contribution claims, and an award of attorney's fees and costs to the third-party defendant, the order is affirmed where: 1) the contract at issue was not ambiguous; 2) the clause at issue required defendant to indemnify third-party defendant for all injuries to defendant's employees that arose in connection with a 2001 Service Agreement; and 3) there was no error of law in the district court's award of the entire nonsegregated category to third-party defendant.
[07/29] Danos Marine Inc. v. Certain Primary Protection & Indemn. Underwriters
In an action to recover costs of wreck removal from defendant-underwriters of a liftboat resulting from the capsizing and sinking of that vessel in the Gulf of Mexico during Hurricane Katrina, judgment for defendant is reversed where the costs of removing the wreck were covered under the policy at issue but the value of the salvage did not exceed those costs.
[07/20] Royal & Sun Alliance Ins., PLC v. Ocean World Lines, Inc.
In an action based on damage to a printing press shipped pursuant to a bill of lading, partial summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where the Supreme Court previously held that the Carmack Amendment "does not apply to a shipment originating overseas under a single through bill of lading," in Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp., ___ S.Ct. ___ (2010).
[06/29] Stacy v. Rederiet Otto Danielsen, A.S.
In an action for negligent infliction of emotional distress arising from a maritime collision, dismissal of the action is reversed where plaintiff alleged that he was within the zone of danger and that he suffered emotional distress from the fright caused by the negligent action of defendants, and nothing more was required to assert a cause of action cognizable under maritime law.
[06/25] Crescent Towing & Salvage Co. v. Chios Beauty MV
In an action for damages sustained when defendant's ship collided with plaintiffs' barges and tugboats during Hurricane Katrina, partial judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where the district court did not clearly err in its finding of a predicted "direct hit" on New Orleans by the hurricane, its factual findings based on this finding, and the ultimate finding of negligence to the extent that it relied upon this finding. However, the matter is remanded where the district court needed to enter an order setting the total amount of recovery plaintiffs could recover in rem.
[06/21] Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp.
In an action based on the destruction of goods being shipped, the Ninth Circuit's reversal of the district court's dismissal of the action based on the fact that the parties' contract designated a Tokyo court as the venue for any dispute is reversed where, because the Carmack Amendment did not apply to a shipment originating overseas under a single through bill of lading, the parties- agreement to litigate these cases in Tokyo is binding.
[05/13] Valladolid v. Pac. Ops. Offshore, LP
In a petition for review of the denial of workers' compensation benefits under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) and the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) based on an injury on an offshore drilling platform, the petition is granted in part where: 1) the most natural reading of the OCSLA provided coverage for any injury caused by outer continental shelf operations regardless of where the injury occurred; 2) Congress intended to provide LHWCA coverage regardless of the applicability of state law; and 3) the OCSLA claimant must establish a substantial nexus between the injury and extractive operations on the shelf. However, the petition is denied in part where petitioner was not entitled to LHWCA benefits, on the ground that the drilling platform's use as a convenient dumping ground for scrap metal did not convert it into a maritime situs.
[04/16] Harrington v. Atlantic Sounding Co.
In a personal injury action arising out of injuries sustained by plaintiff-seaman, the district court's order denying defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay the district court action and compel arbitration, is vacated where section 6 of the Federal Employer's Liability Act did not apply to seamen's arbitration agreements, and thus the arbitration agreement was not unenforceable as a matter of law, and the district court's finding that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable due to unconscionability was erroneous.
[04/12] Crimson Yachts v. Betty Lyn II Motor Yacht
In an action seeking to enforce a maritime lien for major repairs plaintiff performed on a motor yacht, the dismissal of plaintiff's in rem claims against the yacht is reversed where the yacht constituted a vessel and, therefore, was subject to maritime liens and the court's admiralty jurisdiction.
[03/22] Borkowski v. F/V Madison Kate, Sea Ventures, LLC
In plaintiffs' suit alleging violations of federal maritime law and state wage laws, district court's judgment is affirmed but based on a different reason where: 1) to the extent the compensatory relief sought under section 10601 is premised on the claim that defendant improperly deducted expenses, there is no evidence upon which any fact-finder could conclude that the deductions were improper; 2) there is nothing in the record that supports an award of punitive damages; and 3) any argument that the district court wrongly decided the merits of the wage claim is considered waived.
