Justia Admiralty & Maritime Law Opinion SummariesArticles Posted in U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
Quail Cruises Ship Mgmt v. Agencia De Viagens CVC Tur Limitada, et al.
These cases stemmed from plaintiff's complaint that defendants conspired to induce plaintiff to purchase the "M/V Pacific" (vessel) - better known as the eponymous "Love Boat" from its television days of the 1970s and 1980s - by fraudulently misrepresenting the vessel's deterioration and defective condition. Plaintiffs brought claims for securities fraud under section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5; maritime torts of fraud in the inducement, recklessness, and negligence/negligent misrepresentation; and common law claims. At issue was whether the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court vacated the district court's order dismissing the complaint and remanded for further proceedings where the court could not conclude at that stage in the proceedings that the alleged transfer of title to the shares in the United States was beyond section 10(b)'s territorial reach in light of Morrison v. Nat'l Australia Bank Ltd. Accordingly, the district court erred by dismissing plaintiff's claim on that basis. View "Quail Cruises Ship Mgmt v. Agencia De Viagens CVC Tur Limitada, et al." on Justia Law
Keith Bray, et al v. The Unidentified, Shipwrecked
Appellant, a researcher of sunken sea vessels, appealed the dismissal of his contract rescission claim against appellee, a Nevada Corporation engaged in deep sea exploration and recovery, where appellant alleged that appellee fraudulently induced him into entering a contract to provide research and data concerning the location of a long-sunk and potentially highly valuable Spanish cargo vessel. At issue was whether appellant set out a claim cognizable in admiralty jurisdiction where the "nature and character of the contract...has reference to maritime service or maritime transactions." The court held that appellant's claim was cognizable in federal admiralty jurisdiction where contracts to provide research to assist in locating and recovering a sunken vessel were considered maritime in nature.