Justia Admiralty & Maritime Law Opinion Summaries

A Dominican Republic citizen was operating a high-speed vessel in international waters off Puerto Rico with two others when a United States Coast Guard helicopter and cutter approached. After issuing warning shots that failed to stop the vessel, the Coast Guard fired live rounds at the engine, and two bullets struck the plaintiff’s left arm, causing serious, permanent injury. The plaintiff remained on deck for thirty minutes before receiving medical attention and was later airlifted to a hospital in San Juan.After his administrative claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) was denied, the plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. He initially brought constitutional claims against individual Coast Guard officers and a tort claim against the federal government under the FTCA’s law enforcement proviso, but later voluntarily dismissed the constitutional claims. The government moved to dismiss the FTCA claim, arguing the claim was subject to admiralty law and thus exclusively governed by the Suits in Admiralty Act (SIAA). The magistrate judge recommended dismissal, concluding the FTCA did not apply because the SIAA provided the exclusive remedy. The judge further recommended denying the plaintiff’s request to amend his complaint to add an SIAA claim because it would be time-barred. The district court adopted these recommendations and dismissed the case with prejudice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. The court held that the plaintiff’s claim arose under maritime jurisdiction and was therefore governed exclusively by the SIAA, not the FTCA. Because the FTCA expressly excludes claims for which a remedy is provided by the SIAA, the plaintiff could not proceed under the FTCA, even if his SIAA claim was time-barred. The dismissal with prejudice was affirmed. View "Lantigua-Nunez v. US Coast Guard" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between a regional fishermen’s association and the federal government concerning changes to catch limits for several fish species in the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. The association, representing commercial fishermen allegedly harmed by reduced catch limits, challenged the legality of the Framework Adjustment 65 Final Rule and its implementing regulations. At the core of the association’s argument was the claim that the involvement of the New England Fishery Management Council in the development of these rules violated the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The association argued that the Council exercised significant authority in the regulatory process but its members were not properly appointed as federal officers.The United States District Court for the District of Maine reviewed the case. It concluded that the association had standing due to the economic injury suffered by its members. The district court rejected the primary constitutional claim, holding that the Council’s role was advisory and final binding authority rested solely with the Secretary of Commerce, who promulgated the regulations. The court did, however, agree with the association in part, finding certain unrelated statutory provisions unconstitutional, but determined that this did not entitle the association to its requested relief. The district court severed those statutory provisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard the appeal. After reviewing the statutory framework and the specific facts, the court held that the Council’s role was advisory and did not amount to the exercise of significant federal authority under the Appointments Clause. The harm to the association’s members derived from the Secretary’s independent decision to promulgate the binding regulations, not from the Council’s recommendations. The First Circuit affirmed the denial of injunctive and declaratory relief and reversed the district court’s severance of the unrelated statutory provisions. View "New England Fishermen's Stewardship Association v. Lutnick" on Justia Law

A volunteer firefighter with a fire district in New York suffered a serious foot injury while aboard the district’s firefighting vessel responding to a reported boat fire on the Hudson River. He was injured when he tried to prevent a collision between his vessel and a police boat. After the accident, he received compensation under New York’s Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law, which provides workers’ compensation-like benefits for volunteers injured in the line of duty. Despite receiving these benefits, he filed claims in federal court against the fire district, alleging negligence and unseaworthiness under federal maritime law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to the fire district, finding that the firefighter was not entitled to bring claims under the Jones Act or under the Supreme Court’s precedent in Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, and that the exclusive remedy provision of New York’s Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law barred his general maritime law negligence claim. The firefighter appealed, contesting the denial of his Sieracki unseaworthiness and general maritime negligence claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that the firefighter was not entitled to the warranty of seaworthiness extended to so-called "Sieracki seamen." It also concluded that New York’s exclusive remedy provision could not bar his federal negligence claim under general maritime law, given the significant federal interest in uniform maritime remedies. The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the firefighter met the requirements for Sieracki seaman status and to allow his general maritime negligence claim to proceed. View "In re Complaint of Verplanck Fire District" on Justia Law

A shipping dispute arose when a common carrier charged a trucking company detention fees for the late return of shipping equipment. The delay was caused by a COVID-19-related closure at the consignee’s plant, and when the trucking company attempted to return the equipment, the port was closed for three days due to scheduled closures and a holiday. The trucking company disputed a portion of the detention charges, arguing that it was impossible to return the equipment while the port’s gates were closed.The Federal Maritime Commission initially found the disputed charges unreasonable, concluding they could not have incentivized a faster return because the port was not accepting containers during the relevant days. The carrier sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which vacated and remanded, instructing the Commission to address specific arguments and analyze the charges under the proper legal framework, especially the “incentive principle” as articulated in the Commission’s Interpretive Rule. On remand, the Commission reaffirmed that the charges were unreasonable. It emphasized that the purpose of detention fees is to promote freight fluidity and found that, under the uncontested facts—namely, the plant closure, the port’s closure, and the absence of costs to the carrier—the charges did not serve that purpose. The Commission also addressed and rejected each of the carrier’s justifications and extenuating circumstances.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the Commission’s order on remand. The court held that the Commission’s determination was reasonable, supported by substantial evidence, and consistent with its Interpretive Rule. The court emphasized that the relevant standard is whether the charges promoted freight fluidity and found that the fees did not do so under the specific facts. The court denied the petition for review. View "Evergreen Shipping Agency (America) Corp. v. FMC" on Justia Law

A hotel guest, who was staying at a lodge as part of a cruise package, fell in his bathroom after tripping over a raised shower ledge situated close to the toilet. He alleged that the bathroom’s configuration was unreasonably dangerous, and that the cruise line and hotel operator were negligent in constructing or maintaining that configuration. The guest asserted both a traditional maritime negligence claim and an alternative theory of negligence per se, arguing that the bathroom violated applicable plumbing codes.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment for the defendants on both theories. Regarding the negligence claim, the district court ruled that the plaintiff had not provided evidence that the defendants had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition. On the negligence per se theory, the district court found that there was insufficient evidence that a plumbing code violation caused the plaintiff’s injury.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The appellate court held that, because the defendants owned and constructed the lodge’s bathroom, there was no dispute that they knew or should have known the configuration existed. It found that the plaintiff’s expert evidence created a genuine dispute about whether the defendants knew or should have known that the configuration was unreasonably dangerous. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment on the maritime negligence claim. However, the appellate court agreed with the district court that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the negligence per se theory, concluding that a movable shower curtain did not violate the cited plumbing code. The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants on negligence per se and remanded the general negligence claim for further proceedings. View "PETREY V. PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD." on Justia Law

A seaman who worked aboard a Cayman Islands-flagged yacht suffered a right shoulder injury while helping recover an underwater scooter at the direction of his captain. After the incident, the seaman alleged he was denied pain medication, reassigned to night shifts to hide his injury from guests, and eventually repatriated to his home country without his belongings. He sued the yacht’s beneficial owner, the captain, the vessel’s record owner, his nominal employer, the yacht’s manager, and the insurer, asserting various claims including negligence under the Jones Act, unseaworthiness, failure to provide maintenance and cure, failure to treat, negligence, conversion, and breach of insurance contract.The defendants (except the insurer) removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida under the New York Convention, citing an arbitration provision in the seaman’s employment agreement requiring disputes to be arbitrated in the Cayman Islands. The district court compelled arbitration as to the Jones Act, maintenance and cure, and failure to treat claims against the yacht owner, the beneficial owner, and the employer, but remanded the remaining claims to state court. The insurer later settled.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision compelling arbitration for the Jones Act, maintenance and cure, and failure to treat claims against the nominal employer, and for the maintenance and cure and failure to treat claims against the yacht owner and beneficial owner. However, it reversed the order to the extent it compelled arbitration of the Jones Act claim against the yacht owner and beneficial owner, finding insufficient allegations of concerted misconduct to warrant estoppel. The court dismissed the cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction as to the remanded claims. The main holding is that arbitration must be compelled for the relevant claims as to the nominal employer, and for maintenance and cure and failure to treat as to the yacht owner and beneficial owner, but not for the Jones Act claim against the latter two. View "Chemaly v. Lampert" on Justia Law

In 2021, the United States seized over 700,000 barrels of crude oil from two tankers in the Mediterranean Sea. The government alleged that the oil belonged to the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), an entity it claimed materially supported the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. The government further asserted that NIOC’s activities included supplying, transporting, and selling oil to benefit the IRGC, which used these resources to fund terrorist activities targeting the United States. A Turkish commodities trading company, Aspan Petrokimya Co., claimed ownership of the seized oil and sought to recover the proceeds from its sale.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially dismissed the government’s forfeiture complaints without prejudice, finding that the government had not adequately pled that NIOC’s sale of oil affected foreign commerce. The government then filed an Amended Complaint consolidating the cases and providing additional factual detail. The district court denied Aspan’s renewed motion to dismiss, concluding that the amended allegations sufficiently addressed the jurisdictional element and all other statutory requirements. To expedite appellate review, Aspan admitted the complaint’s factual allegations, consented to judgment on the pleadings, and appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss de novo. The appellate court held that the government needed only to allege NIOC’s ownership of the property at the time of the offense, not at the time of seizure. The court also found that the Amended Complaint plausibly alleged that NIOC’s material support of the IRGC substantially affected foreign commerce, and that NIOC’s actions were calculated to influence the U.S. government. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA v. All Petroleum-Product Cargo Onboard the M/T Arina" on Justia Law

Three individuals were detected by U.S. authorities aboard a “go-fast” vessel approximately 158 nautical miles southeast of Isla Beata, Dominican Republic. During the encounter, the men were seen discarding packages, later recovered as cocaine. The Coast Guard boarded the vessel, whose master claimed Colombian nationality, but Colombian authorities would not confirm or deny the vessel’s registration. As a result, U.S. authorities deemed the vessel “stateless” and seized approximately 375 kilograms of cocaine. The men were arrested and charged under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine while onboard a vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied the defendants’ joint motion to dismiss the indictment. The court relied on Eleventh Circuit precedent upholding the constitutionality of the MDLEA, specifically regarding Congress’s ability to assert jurisdiction over stateless vessels on the high seas under the protective principle of international law. After the motion was denied, all three defendants pleaded guilty. At sentencing, the district court imposed varying terms of imprisonment and supervised release, granting some downward variances but denying a minor-role reduction to one defendant, who raised the issue on appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court held that binding circuit precedent forecloses constitutional challenges to the MDLEA, including claims based on the Felonies Clause, the lack of a nexus to the United States, and the statute’s definition of “stateless vessel.” The court also held that recent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines regarding minor-role reductions were substantive and not retroactively applicable. The district court’s denial of a minor-role reduction and all other challenged rulings were affirmed. View "USA v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The case concerns an incident that occurred at Lake Mead, where Bryce Tyrone Verhonich operated a jet ski with a passenger, Lily Hatcher, in the early morning hours. After taking a detour to view the sunrise, both Verhonich and Hatcher fell into the water under rough conditions. Verhonich, who was not wearing a life jacket or engine cut-off lanyard, was rescued, but Hatcher drowned. Subsequent investigation revealed that neither individual was wearing a personal flotation device and the engine cut-off switch lanyard was not attached to Verhonich. Surveillance and body camera footage confirmed these facts. Hatcher’s body was later recovered, and an autopsy found drowning as the cause of death, with drugs as contributing factors.The case was first tried before a United States magistrate judge, who found Verhonich guilty of negligent operation of a vessel, failure to wear a personal flotation device, and failure to attach the engine cut-off switch lanyard—all in violation of National Park Service regulations. The magistrate judge sentenced him to six months in custody and two years of probation. Verhonich appealed to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, arguing improper admission of evidence, insufficient evidence for conviction on negligent operation, and sentencing error. The district court affirmed the convictions and sentence.On further appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that failure to wear a life jacket and failure to attach a safety lanyard may both be considered in determining negligent operation under 36 C.F.R. § 3.8(b)(8). The court found sufficient evidence to support Verhonich’s conviction, determined that evidentiary objections did not survive plain error review, and upheld the sentence as reasonable. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA V. VERHONICH" on Justia Law

A man sought to contest the forfeiture of a boat, claiming he was its rightful owner. The boat had been seized and made subject to forfeiture following his brother’s guilty plea to a federal drug conspiracy that began in May 2019. The man submitted a pro se petition in federal district court, asserting under penalty of perjury that he was the sole and rightful owner of the boat at the time it was seized. He attached several documents, all in Spanish, which he described as evidence of ownership and title. Later, with counsel, he provided additional documents purporting to show that he acquired the boat in 2017.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico had issued a preliminary order of forfeiture following the brother’s plea. After the man’s petition, the government moved to dismiss, arguing that the petition failed to allege when and how the man acquired his interest in the boat, as required by statute. The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss without a hearing and entered a final order of forfeiture. The man appealed, arguing that his submissions sufficed or, alternatively, that he should have been allowed to amend his petition.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that the man’s petition did not satisfy the statutory requirement to state the time and circumstances of his acquisition of the boat, and that untranslated documents could not be considered. However, the appellate court found that the district court did not address the alternative request for leave to amend, and the reasons for denial were not apparent from the record. The First Circuit vacated the denial of the petition and remanded for further proceedings, directing the district court to consider the request to amend in light of the liberal construction required by statute. View "US v. Calderin-Pascual" on Justia Law