Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 14-1189
FLAME S.A.,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FREIGHT BULK PTE. LTD.,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
INDUSTRIAL CARRIERS, INC.; VISTA SHIPPING,
BARANSKIY; GLORY WEALTH SHIPPING PTE LTD.,
INC.;
VIKTOR
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:13-cv-00658-RGD-LRL)
Argued:
Decided:
August 5, 2014
Supplemental
Rule
of
the
Federal
Rules
of
Eastern
District
of
Virginia
seeking
attachment
of
Freight
Swap
Agreements
(FFAs).
The
district
court
law
and
that
the
FFAs
are
maritime
contracts
under
federal law. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the
decision of the district court.
I.
In 2008, Flame, an integrated shipping and trading company
organized under the laws of Switzerland and headquartered in
Lugano,
Switzerland,
entered
into
four
FFAs
with
Industrial
future
date.
To
act
as
diversification
against
the
Index,
which
provides
market
freight
rates
for
the
the
can
be
Second
complicated
Circuits
financial
description
transactions,
of
how
FFAs
but
we
work
in
DAmico Dry Ltd. v. Primera Maritime (Hellas) Ltd., No. 11-3473cv, 2014 WL 2609648 (2d Cir. June 12, 2014), an easy to follow
narrative of the type of agreement at issue here:
September
2008,
freight
rates
in
the
international
distressed.
In
October
2008,
ICI
voluntarily
against
ICI
on
December
13,
2010
in
the
amount
of
obtaining
the
English
judgment
against
ICI,
Flame
ICI
appeared
before
the
district
court
and
moved
to
District
of
New
York
in
the
United
States
District
arguing
that
the
court
lacked
subject
matter
Because
Flame
invoked
only
the
courts
maritime
of
valid
maritime
claim
the
district
court
lacked
jurisdictional
arguments. 4
Specifically,
the
district
law,
over
the
case
controlled
because
that
federal
issue.
law,
The
rather
district
than
court
considering
the
complexities
and
uncertainties
appeal
to
this
Court.
Flame
S.A.
v.
Industrial
II.
This case presents two distinct issues on appeal, both of
which concern the courts subject matter jurisdiction. First, we
must determine whether federal law or foreign law controls our
jurisdictional
inquiry.
Second,
we
must
consider
whether
the
jurisdiction
de
novo.
See
Vitol,
S.A.
v.
Primerose
Shipping Co., 708 F.3d 527, 533 (4th Cir. 2013). We review the
district courts factual findings with respect to jurisdiction
for clear error. Velasco v. Govt of Indon., 370 F.3d 392, 398
(4th Cir. 2004).
III.
A.
The judicial Power [of the United States] extend[s] . . .
to
all
Cases
of
admiralty
and
maritime
Jurisdiction.
U.S.
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.
28 U.S.C. 1333; see Judiciary Act of 1789, 9, Ch. 20, 1
Stat. 73, 7677.
Since the Founding, the Supreme Court has made clear the
authority
and
primacy
of
the
federal
courts
in
matters
of
106
([A]dmiralty jurisdiction in the United
States may be broadly stated as extending to
... any claim to enforce a judgment of a
foreign admiralty court.). Even in the
10
the
plaintiff
must
have
claim
against
the
53334
(considering
whether
the
court
had
admiralty
before
us,
the
initial
issue
is
whether
United
States
judgment
admiralty
or
to
determine
whether
the
if
the
maritime
claim
law
of
is
cognizable
the
United
in
States
11
federal
law
is
applied,
then
this
Court
has
admiralty
if
federal
the
considered
jurisdiction
courts
claim
underlying
maritime
that
admiralty
claim
rendered
the
and
foreign
under
the
maritime
the
judgment
laws
judgment.
jurisdiction
of
The
would
the
be
foreign
district
court
of
claim
to
enforce
foreign
judgment
must
be
procedural
issue
and
noted
that
[g]enerally,
procedural
it
to
its
ultimate
conclusion
that
federal
law
should
argument
that
our
prior
12
decision
in
Vitol
dictated
district
court
looked
to
analogous
precedent
from
the
China
Shipping
Development
Co.,
722
F.3d
488
(2d
Cir.
B.
Freight
Bulk
contends
that
our
prior
opinion
in
Vitol
view
this
choice
of
13
forum
in
England
made
the
issue
Freight
Bulk
now
raises,
whether
federal
or
that
case
and
no
more.
Freight
Bulks
argument
to
the
C.
Supreme Court precedent strongly indicates that federal law
should control our determination of whether a claim, such as the
FFA
dispute
in
this
case,
sounds
in
admiralty.
Although
the
Supreme Court has not directly addressed the issue, its opinion
in Kirby offers guidance.
In Kirby, the Supreme Court considered whether federal or
state law governed the interpretation of two maritime contracts.
543 U.S. at 2223. The Court concluded that [w]hen a contract
is a maritime one, and the dispute is not inherently local,
federal
reaching
law
this
controls
the
conclusion,
contract
the
interpretation.
Supreme
Court
Id.
explained
In
that
As
the
district
court
observed,
based
upon
the
in
seemingly
conclusion
Blue
on
was
Whale,
point,
bolstered
which
the
is
Blue
by
the
Second
instructive
Whale
in
decision
Circuits
part.
While
discusses
the
valid
prima
facie
admiralty
16
claim
for
purposes
of
in
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
the
Second
at
49495. 7
treatment
of
the
Thus,
issue
while
in
helpful,
Blue
the
Whale
is
Second
Circuits
only
analogous
precedent.
After briefing and oral argument in the case at bar, the
Second Circuit decided DAmico which does directly address the
jurisdictional question before us. In DAmico, the holder of an
7
part
of
its
maritime
nature
of
[a]
claim
must
be
determined
by
under
the
laws
of
England,
the
claim
underlying
the
concluded
federal
belongs
in
law
one
that
choice
of
because
[t]he
question
or
another
court
law
is
principles
whether
support
a
jurisdictional
claim
and
all
Cases
of
admiralty
and
maritime
Jurisdiction,
the
matters
deemed
maritime
under
our
laws
have
access
to
our
to
enforce
foreign
maritime
judgment
is
within
the
19
IV.
A.
Having
determined
that
federal
law
controls
our
dispute.
Kirby,
543
U.S.
at
23.
Instead,
the
answer
or
maritime
transactions.
Id.
at
24;
see
1-XII
In
consideration
of
this
question,
the
district
court
other
language
in
the
district
courts
opinion
use
of
[FFAs]
appears
to
have
been
primarily
for
we
need
not
resolve
whether
all
FFAs
are
B.
On
appeal,
maritime
Freight
contracts
Bulk
because
argues
they
that
have
the
no
FFAs
cannot
connection
to
be
any
be
settled
only
with
cash
and
not
by
delivery
(i.e.,
they
are
nothing
more
than
financial
bets
on
the
(To
ascertain
whether
contract
is
maritime
one,
we
an
sustained
insurance
to
vessels
contract
while
providing
undergoing
coverage
repairs
is
for
a
losses
maritime
Shipping
S.P.A.,
Nos.
11-00099,
11-00754,
2012
WL
essence
of
these
FFAs
concerns
commitments
to
perform
contracts.
Again,
marine
insurance
contracts
are
23
the
FFAs
call
for
cash
settlement
does
not
preclude
the
FFAs
dispute
are
that
maritime
both
contracts.
Flame
and
In
ICI
this
case,
there
are
shipping
is
no
companies
V.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district courts
decision.
AFFIRMED
10
my
respect
for
English
law,
and
in
full
that
the
availability
of
federal
admiralty
In Blue Whale
Corp. v. Grand China Shipping Development Co., 722 F.3d 488, 494
(2d Cir. 2013), the Second Circuit held that the question of
whether a claim sounds in admiralty is inherently procedural
by
virtue
of
its
relationship
to
the
courts
subject
matter
than
the
Second
Circuit
suggested.
Rules
of
26
court
could
theoretically
import
foreign
from
jurisdiction.
different
It
would,
sovereign
as
Justice
--
here,
Story
the
foreign
recognized
in
and
violate
the
principle
that
every
nation
must
32, 34 (1834).
Second, considerations of administrability counsel in favor
of
using
domestic,
rather
subject-matter jurisdiction.
than
foreign,
law
to
determine
of
foreign
law
every
time
contract
with
different
See DAmico
other
countries
may
not
have
the
same
conceptual
See,
force
courts
incorporating
jurisdictional
the
and
litigants
law
of
various
would
only
stage
28
down
the
foreign
make
rabbit
hole
countries
at
matters
worse.
of
the
See
court
would
lack
admiralty
jurisdiction
and
The
appellee
(The same
of
the
Constitutions
vesting
of
subject-matter
added),
and
Congresss
grant
to
federal
district
to
the
promote
greater
vindication
of
uniformity
American
29
in
maritime
maritime
law
or
interests,
to
the
Framers
clearly
wanted
federal
courts
to
possess
admiralty
in
nature.
See
DAmico,
2014
WL
2609648,
at
*7.
in
determining
subject-matter
jurisdiction
advances
the
DeLovio v. Boit,
7 F. Cas. 418, 443 (C.C.D. Mass. 1815) (No. 3776) (Story, J.);
see
also
Sisson
v.
Ruby,
497
U.S.
358,
367
(1990)
(The
of
maritime
marks omitted).
commerce . . . .)
(internal
quotation
advancing
the
United
necessity
refer
to
States
our
own
maritime
interests,
conception
of
what
we
must
by
counts
as
The
comity,
See
federal
courts
exercise
admiralty
admiralty,
even
if
the
judgments
would
not
otherwise
be
M/V Campeche, 566 F.2d 482, 485 (5th Cir. 1978); see also Vitol,
S.A. v. Primrose Shipping Co., 708 F.3d 527, 536 & n.4 (4th Cir.
2013).
Appellant would have us extend this rule and declare that
federal courts must refuse to assert admiralty jurisdiction over
contracts or judgments characterized as non-maritime by their
rendering
result.
forums.
Neither
logic
nor
comity
dictates
this
it
admiralty
for
--
accommodation
the
a
is
purpose
of
refusing
jurisdictional
supported
by
to
contraction.
considerations
31
hear
a
The
of
case
in
former
international
Comity
is
satisfied
as
long
as
one
court
enforces
the
It
judgment
is
given
the
maximum
constitutionally
be
sure,
foreign
law
is
not
irrelevant
to
the
internal
to
the
conceptual
schemas
of
American
principal
objective
of
32
[the]
contract
is
maritime
commerce.
The
reasoned
domestic,
federal
judgments
on
this
issue
courts.
characterize
of
experienced
are
due
respectful
Additionally,
contract
as
jurists,
whether
maritime
might
foreign
or
consideration
by
other
countries
have
collateral
--
for
example,
in
terms
of
how
the
contract
is
by
reference
foreign
law
circumstances,
it
to
may
domestic
or
may
cannot
rather
not
be
determine
than
foreign
instructive
the
law.
under
subject
the
matter
Agees
majority
opinion,
the
contract
here
has
lies.
33