Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
By Louis M. Solomon
Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, et al., No. 10-10269 (11th Cir. Sept. 2011)
[enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers / unenhanced version available from lexisONE Free Case Law], offers a glimpse into the fascinating
world of maritime jurisdiction of the federal courts, 200+-year old shipwrecks of
Spanish war ships, wars between England and France, secret agreements Spain made
with France, and the business of Odyssey, a deep-ocean exploration and shipwreck
recovery company. Even for international law firms practicing international
dispute resolution or international transactions, the topics are not typical.
However, the decision also addresses several timely topics of international litigation
and dispute resolution and thus deserves a read.
Odessey, as part of its Amsterdam Project,
located what has now been found to be the Nuestra Senora de las Mercedes
(Mercedes), a Spanish vessel that sank in 1804 off the coast of Gibraltar.
Asserting claims in the Middle District of Florida under the "law of finds" and
the "law of salvage", Odeyssey's claim was in rem and sought the arrest of
the ship as well as "its apparel, tackle, appurtenances, and cargo". Spain,
Portugal, and others - 25 claimants - all made claims arguing that they had an interest
in the cargo. The Magistrate Judge determined that the ship belonged to Spain,
that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act precluded U.S. jurisdiction, and that
Spain should be given possession of both the ship and its cargo (only a token, symbolic
piece of cargo was in the U.S.).
In affirming, the Eleventh Circuit ruled,
among other things:
First, the Court of Appeals determined
that the District Court was not obliged to take the allegations of the complaint
as true when the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal court was challenged.
The court below was entitled to rely on extrinsic evidence.
Second, in making the subject matter
determination, the court was entitled to weigh the evidence independently, "and
is not constrained to view [the evidence] in the light most favorable to the non-movant".
District Court was not required to use the Rule 56 standard and was also not required
to grant a hearing or permit cross-examination. See Land v. Dollar,
330 U.S. 731 (1947) [enhanced version / unenhanced version ] ("As there is no statutory direction for the procedure upon
an issue of jurisdiction, the mode of its determination is left to the trial
section of the FSIA found applicable was Section 1609, which, as we just blogged,
has been viewed by other Courts of Appeals as relating, not to finding original
jurisdiction, but finding jurisdiction to enforce judgments or secure the attachment
or (in this case) the "arrest" of assets or other property. At the same time,
"[w]hile the Mercedes itself is not within the United States that alone does
not defeat the court's ability to obtain jurisdiction over it. This too should
be compared to the Second Circuit's decision in Walters v. Industrial and Commercial
Bank of China, Ltd, et al., Dkt. No. 10-806-cv (2d. Cir. July 2011) [enhanced version / unenhanced version], which held that Section 1609 was available only with respect
to property located in the U.S.
Fifth, even acknowledging that the Supreme
Court has left the "critical term" "commercial" largely undefined, the Court of
Appeals found that the Mercedes was not engaged in commercial activity even
though "75% of the cargo measured by value was privately owned, . . . , and Spain
was not at war when the Mercedes sank.
Finally, the Court of Appeals determined
that comity dictated that the Court treat the cargo like the vessel itself in terms
of granting it sovereign immunity protection. For this holding the Court
of Appeals needed to rely on the specific facts of the case - i.e., "where the cargo
was found aboard a sunken active duty Spanish military vessel and was legally placed
aboard the vessel".
International Practice Law Blog for more analysis of international
and foreign law issues.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with
us through our corporate site.