Justia Admiralty & Maritime Law Opinion Summaries

Two commercial fishermen and their family business challenged federal regulations that reduced catch limits for gag grouper in the Gulf of Mexico, a fish central to their livelihood. The fishermen argued that the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, which played a key role in proposing the catch limits and regulatory framework, was unconstitutionally composed and shielded from removal, violating the Appointments Clause and other constitutional provisions. Their complaint alleged significant financial harm resulting from the reduced catch limits.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama found that certain powers granted to the Council—specifically, three statutory “veto” provisions that allow the Council to block actions by the Secretary of Commerce—rendered Councilmembers “officers” wielding significant federal authority. It determined their appointments violated the Appointments Clause because they were not properly appointed as principal officers. However, instead of vacating the catch limit rule, the district court severed the unconstitutional veto provisions from the governing statute and entered judgment for the plaintiffs.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit largely agreed that the Council’s veto powers confer significant authority, so Councilmembers’ appointments as currently structured are constitutionally deficient. However, the Eleventh Circuit held that the remedy should be limited to invalidating actions taken with those veto powers. Because the gag grouper rule was not promulgated using the Council’s unconstitutional veto authority but rather through an advisory process ratified by the Secretary, the rule itself was not tainted. The court vacated the district court’s judgment for the plaintiffs and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the government, concluding that vacatur of the challenged rule was unwarranted. View "Russo v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce" on Justia Law

A passenger aboard a cruise ship alleged that, after becoming inebriated, she was separated from her friends and ended up in a maintenance closet with a crewmember. She stated that she was held against her will and sexually assaulted. Both she and the crewmember gave differing accounts of the incident to FBI agents: she could not recall if she consented to sexual conduct, while the crewmember claimed it was consensual and that he did not know she was intoxicated. The FBI investigator ultimately concluded the encounter was consensual, and prosecutors declined to bring criminal charges.The passenger brought suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida asserting claims including false imprisonment and sexual assault. In pretrial proceedings, the district court granted her motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of false imprisonment liability, finding that the cruise line had not produced admissible evidence to create a dispute of material fact. The district court excluded the FBI reports as hearsay. At trial, the district court instructed the jury that the cruise line was already liable for false imprisonment and limited the ability of the defendant to challenge the factual basis for that claim. The jury found the cruise line liable for sexual assault but rejected the negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, awarding over $10 million in damages.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in granting partial summary judgment on false imprisonment and in excluding the FBI investigator’s conclusions, which were admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule. The appellate court reversed the partial summary judgment on the false imprisonment claim, vacated the judgment as to the false imprisonment and sexual assault claims, and remanded for a new trial on those claims. The negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims remain resolved in favor of the cruise line. View "Doe v. Carnival Corporation" on Justia Law

Coast Guardsmen intercepted two stateless vessels in international waters, each carrying large quantities of cocaine traveling from Colombia to Mexico. Alonso Pineda-Torres, a Colombian citizen and resident, was involved in planning and preparing these smuggling operations, including paying crewmembers and assisting with a launch from Colombia. After his extradition to the United States, he was indicted under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act for conspiracy to distribute and possess cocaine on a vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction.In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Pineda-Torres initially pleaded not guilty, but later entered a plea agreement, admitting involvement in the operation. He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because his conduct occurred abroad and he was not captured in international waters. The district court denied his motion, and he subsequently pleaded guilty.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the constitutionality of the statute as applied to Pineda-Torres. He argued the statute was invalid because his acts lacked a nexus to the United States and occurred solely in Colombia. The Eleventh Circuit rejected these arguments, relying on its precedent that the Act’s extraterritorial reach is supported by universal and protective principles, and that no nexus to the United States is required. The court held that, even if the Felonies Clause alone did not provide authority, the Necessary and Proper Clause empowered Congress to criminalize conspiracies to commit drug trafficking on the high seas, including land-based conduct like Pineda-Torres’s. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding Congress had constitutional authority to punish this kind of conspiracy involving drug trafficking in international waters. View "USA v. Pineda-Torres" on Justia Law

Two individuals were bowfishing on Lake Guntersville in Alabama when their boat collided with an unmarked, partially submerged duck blind, resulting in severe injuries. The duck blind, built by unknown persons prior to 2007, was affixed to land owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a federally owned corporation. The United States Coast Guard, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the TVA all have regulatory responsibilities over the lake, which is a navigable waterway. The plaintiffs alleged negligence and wantonness, claiming that the United States and the TVA failed to mark, remove, or warn about the hazard.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under two statutes: the Suits in Admiralty Act (SAA) and the TVA Act. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the discretionary-function exception from the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) shielded them from liability. The district court granted the motion, finding that the SAA's waiver of sovereign immunity was subject to the FTCA’s discretionary-function exception and that the conduct at issue was discretionary.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all claims against the United States, holding that binding circuit precedent recognizes a discretionary-function exception under the SAA, which bars such claims. However, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of the claims against the TVA under the TVA Act. The court held that the TVA’s sue-and-be-sued clause is not subject to the discretionary-function exception, allowing the plaintiffs’ claims against the TVA to proceed. The case was remanded for further proceedings against the TVA only. View "Jones v. USA" 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

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

Javier Hernandez was a participant in a transnational criminal operation that smuggled Cuban migrants into Mexico for eventual entry into the United States. His primary role involved stealing boats from Southwest Florida, which he delivered to co-conspirators in Mexico. These vessels were used to transport migrants from Cuba or were sold to support the smuggling enterprise, including bribing law enforcement. Hernandez also transported stolen vehicles to Mexico for similar purposes. He was compensated for each delivery and admitted to earning substantial profits from these activities.Federal authorities identified Hernandez through investigative techniques including cell-site location tracking and the recovery of his cell phone, which had been seized by Mexican authorities. The government obtained and executed a warrant to search his phone, extracting relevant data. After initial technical difficulties, a second extraction was performed after the warrant’s nominal expiration date but while the phone was still in government custody. Hernandez was indicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on five counts, including conspiracy to encourage unlawful entry, transportation of stolen vessels, trafficking in vehicles with altered VINs, and money laundering. He moved to suppress the evidence from the second extraction, but the district court denied the motion, applied several sentencing enhancements, and imposed a sentence of ninety-five months.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the second extraction did not violate Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 or the Fourth Amendment, as Rule 41(e)(2)(B) allows for off-site copying and review of electronic information after the warrant period. The court also found that even if there were a procedural violation, suppression would not be warranted due to the agents’ good faith and lack of prejudice. The court determined that the evidence was sufficient to sustain all convictions and found no reversible error in the sentencing calculations or guideline enhancements. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

A company operating stevedoring services at the Port of Mobile, Alabama, entered into a collective bargaining agreement with a union representing longshore workers. The agreement included a no-strike provision and outlined procedures for resolving disputes, including arbitration. After an alleged strike by union members, the company filed a lawsuit in state court seeking a temporary restraining order and later damages for breach of the no-strike provision. The state court issued a restraining order, ending the strike within days. The union subsequently removed the case to federal court, where the company amended its complaint to seek damages, asserting that all conditions precedent for judicial action had been met.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, the union moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the dispute should be resolved through the arbitration process outlined in the collective bargaining agreement. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the agreement permitted the company to seek monetary damages in court for violations of the no-strike provision. The union then filed an interlocutory appeal of the order denying arbitration, while the underlying damages action remained pending.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether it had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal. The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the Federal Arbitration Act’s provision for interlocutory appeals does not apply to collective bargaining agreements covering workers engaged in interstate commerce, such as longshoremen. The court also found no basis for jurisdiction under the Labor Management Relations Act or the collateral-order doctrine. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, leaving the district court’s order in place and expressing no opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute. View "APM Terminals Mobile, LLC v. International Longshoremen's Association" on Justia Law

Richard Hicks and his wife, Jocelyn Hicks, filed a lawsuit seeking monetary damages after Richard was injured by a vehicle driven by Gregory Middleton, an employee of Marine Terminals Corporation - East, d.b.a. Ports America. The incident occurred at the Port of Savannah, where both Hicks and Middleton worked as longshoremen. Middleton struck Hicks with his personal vehicle while allegedly on his way to retrieve work-related documents called "game plans."The United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia granted summary judgment in favor of Ports America. The court ruled that Ports America could not be held vicariously liable for Middleton's actions because Middleton was not acting within the scope of his employment when the incident occurred. The court determined that Middleton was engaged in a personal activity, specifically commuting, and had not yet begun his work duties for Ports America.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment. The appellate court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Middleton was acting in furtherance of Ports America's business and within the scope of his employment when the incident occurred. The court noted that a jury could reasonably infer that Middleton's actions, including driving to retrieve the game plans, were part of his job responsibilities and thus within the scope of his employment. The case was remanded for further proceedings to allow a jury to determine these factual issues. View "Hicks v. Middleton" on Justia Law

A minor, J.F., was sexually assaulted by three fellow passengers in a stateroom on a Carnival cruise ship. J.F. alleged that Carnival could have foreseen the crime and failed to take preventative action. She sued Carnival for negligence, claiming the cruise line did not warn her of the danger or prevent the assault.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of Carnival, concluding that the assault was not foreseeable. J.F. appealed the decision, arguing that Carnival had constructive notice of the risk due to previous incidents of sexual misconduct on its ships and the company's security policies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Carnival did not owe J.F. a relevant duty because the cruise line did not have actual or constructive notice of the specific risk that led to the assault. The court found that the general statistics on sexual assaults and the alcohol-smuggling incident involving one of the assailants were insufficient to establish foreseeability. Additionally, the court determined that the hypothetical presence of more security personnel would not have prevented the assault, as the attack occurred in a private stateroom.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Carnival neither owed J.F. a duty to prevent the assault nor proximately caused her injuries. View "J.F. v. Carnival Corporation" on Justia Law