A D M I R A L T Y
________
Course Outline
________
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction for Cases and Controversies in Admiralty are found in:
(A) Article III of the United States Constitution
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; –to all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls; –to all Cases of Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction; –to controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; –to Controversies between two or more states; –between a State and a Citizen of another State; –between Citizens of different States; –between Citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a State, or the Citizen thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.”
(B) 28 USC § 1331 – Federal Question
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
(C) 28 USC § 1332 – Diversity of Citizenship, amount in controversy; costs
“The district court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and is between (1) citizens of different states; (2) citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state; (3) citizens of different states and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a foreign state…as plaintiff and citizens of a state or of different states.
(D) 28 USC § 1333
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of:
(1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to
suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.
(2) Any prize brought into the United States and all proceedings for the condemnation of property taken as prize.
Admiralty Jurisdiction is granted exclusively to the federal courts in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. However, Congress acknowledged that admiralty and maritime jurisdiction has never been totally within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. Thus, Congress codified the Savings to Suitors Clause in 28 USC § 1333, which
Allows for concurrent jurisdiction in admiralty and maritime law between state and federal courts. One, however, cannot bring an in rem action or limitation of liability action in state court. With admiralty and maritime jurisdiction in state court, the courts must apply substantive federal law and state procedural law.
Grubart v. Great Lakes Dredging & Dock Company, 510 U.S. 443
Facts: Defendant was hired to place pilings in the bed of the Chicago River. These pilings were used to keep ships/boats from bumping in to the piers in the area. Apparently, these pilings were placed in soil that was underwater, but was over a tunnel. Eventually, part of the tunnel collapsed, which resulted in the flooding of several buildings in the area. Numerous defendants brought actions against the City of Chicago, who owned the tunnel, in state court. The district court dismissed the case for lack of admiralty jurisdiction, but the appellate court reversed.
Issue: Whether the district court has federal admiralty jurisdiction in this case?
Holding: Yes
Reasoning: The court used the location test and connection with maritime activity test. In this case, the tort was committed on water on a vessel, thus the location test was satisfied. The connection test was also satisfied as this incident had a potentially di
was given materials furnished by Cloverport. Rounds owned the ship.
Holding: The court held that this was not a federal admiralty case. This cased was an in personam case and that it only provided security for a personal judgment. Further, it was well within the scope of the common law remedy to sell property of judgment debtors to pay a debt. In rem, to enforce maritime lien, can only be brought in federal court.
Lejano v. Bandak, 705 So.2d 158 (La. 1997)
Facts: Lejano, a Filipino, was on a ship in the Straits of Florida after sailing from Mobile. He was injured while working on a scaffold. At the time, the ship, owned by a Norwegian company, was in international waters. Lejano’s injuries were serious, as he was a quadriplegic and had brain damage.
Proc. History: Plaintiff filed suit in the 24th JDC via quasi in rem jurisdiction as the ship had docked in the jurisdiction of that court. Plaintiffs then filed an amended petition, naming the owner of the vessel. By yet another amended petition, they named the parent company. Defendants then posted a 8.75 million dollar bond for security and had the vessel released. The trial court overruled the declinatory exceptions, but maintained the defendant’s exception of no cause of action and no right of action. The trial court held that per Lejano’s contract, disputes were to be resolved in either Norway or the Phillipines. Additionally, the court held that forum non conveniens applied. The court of appeal reversed, finding forum non conveniens inapplicable.
