The Cargo Letter
|
The Cargo Letter |
|
Section A: Trade, Financial & Inland News | Section
B: FF World Air News |
Section C: FF World Ocean News | Section
D: FF in Cyberspace |
Section E: The Forwarder Broker World
The
United States Supreme Court
No. 99-1331
Lewis v. Lewis &
Clark Marine, Inc.
States Have
Jurisdiction Over Claims Against Vessel Owners
The U.S. Supreme
Court held unanimously (opinion by O'Connor) that state courts may adjudicate
claims against vessel owners so long as the owner's right to seek limitation of
liability is protected under the Limitation of Liability Act (LLA). James Lewis
(Lewis) filed a claim against Lewis & Clark Marine (Marine) for negligence
in Illinois state court on state claims & under the Jones Act.
Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine limited liability
under the LLA, but at the same time the LLA protects "all other remedies to
which [suitors] are otherwise entitled."
28 U.S.C. s1333. The Supreme
Court granted certiorari to resolve this conflict in maritime laws.
The District court found two exceptions to exclusive federal
jurisdiction, the 1st being where the value of the limitation exceeds the total
value of all claims asserted against the vessel owner and the second being where
there is a single claimant, and dissolved the injunction limiting Marine's
liability in other related claims. The
Court held that the "just" course would be to allow Lewis to proceed
with the claim in state court, but still retain jurisdiction over the petition
for limitation of liability for further proceedings in federal court if
necessary. Thus the District Court
properly exercised its discretion in dissolving the injunction that prevented
Lewis from pursuing his claim in state court, staying Limitation Act
proceedings.
http://www.laws/findlaw.com/us/000/99-1331.html
South Carolina State Ports Authority v.
Federal Maritime Commission
Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals
March 12, 2001
Government Regulation: State sovereign immunity prevents a ship operator from
bringing an administrative proceeding against the South Carolina State Ports
Authority for alleged violations of the Shipping Act of 1984 as a result of the
Authority's refusal to berth ships whose primary purpose is gambling.
Texaco Exploration v. Amclyde Engineered
Products
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
February 28, 2001
Arbitration/Procedure: Rule 14(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which
allows for liberal joinder of 3rd parties in maritime cases, does not supersede
the statutory right to enforce an arbitration clause pursuant to the Federal
Arbitration Act, thus the District Court erred in failing to enforce an
arbitration clause because its enforcement would deny a party the ability to
implead a 3rd party pursuant to Rule 14(c).
System Pipe & Supply v. M/V Viktor
Kurnatovskiy
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
February 26, 2001
Procedure (Personal Jurisdiction): In determining whether the court had personal
jurisdiction over defendant vessel owner for purposes of plaintiff's cargo
damage claim invoking admiralty law, the District Court erred in only
considering the vessel owner's contacts with Texas; because plaintiff's action
arises under federal admiralty law, it need not prove minimum contacts with the
state of Texas, but only with the U.S. as a whole.
United States v. San Juan Bay Marina
First Circuit Court of Appeals
February 21, 2001
Government Regulation: Pursuant to the Rivers & Harbors Act of 1899, 33
U.S.C. ¤ 401, it has been the law for more than a century that no one may place
obstructions into the navigable waters of the United States without
authorization from the Army Corps of Engineers; the District Court thus
correctly ordered defendants to remove piers and structures built on the
navigable waters of the United States without the necessary permits.
http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/1stsanjuanbay.html
U.S. Titan Inc. v. Guangzhou Zhen Hua Shipping
Second
Circuit Court of Appeals
February 15, 2001
Arbitration/Charter Parties: The District Court correctly held that the parties
did not enter into an "ad hoc" agreement to arbitrate whether they had
formed a charter party, but that they had formed a charter party that included
an arbitration clause requiring London arbitration; Foreign Sovereign Immunity:
although defendant vessel owner was a Chinese state-owned company, it was not
immune from petitioner's action to compel arbitration in London in view of the
Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act's arbitration exception.
City of Los Angeles v. Federal Aviation
Administration Please click below to go back to the Cargo Letter home page. Return to the top of Section E Written from wire stories, the Associated Press,
Reuters, Hong Kong Shipping News Lloyds & other world sources.
No. 99-70452 (02/14/01)
Before Circuit Judges Goodwin, Hug, Jr., and Hall
February 15, 2001
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/9th/9970452.html
Administrative
Law/Procedure: Neither 49 U.S.C. ¤ 46110(a) or 5 U.S.C. ¤¤ 701-06 grant the
courts of appeal jurisdiction over review of Final Policy decisions made by the
FAA. 5 U.S.C. ¤¤ 701-706 are the codification of section 10 of the
Administrative Procedures Act, but section 10 does not confer subject matter
jurisdiction. See Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1976). The jurisdictional
grant of 49 U.S.C. ¤ 46110 embraces only Air Commerce & Safety, and does
not apply to final policy. Because the CityÕs action could have been filed
originally in district court & transfer serves the interest of justice, this
petition is transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California. TRANSFERRED.
Section A
Section B
Section C
Section D
Cargo Letter Home Page