Great Lakes Reinsurance v. Steven Pomarico

294 F. App'x 501
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided September 23, 2008·No. 07-15066·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Having thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and having heard oral argument by counsel, we can find no abuse of discretion, 1 particularly in view of the “Savings to Suitors” clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) 2 and the familiarity of the Florida courts with maritime disputes. See, e.g. Carnival Corp. v. Carlisle, 953 So.2d 461 (Fla.2007). Therefore, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

1

. See Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 289-90, 115 S.Ct. 2137, 2144, 132 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995) (determining that a stay by the district court of a declaratory judgment action is reviewed for abuse of discretion).

2

. 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Admiralty, maritime and prize cases.

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.

(emphasis added).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Great Lakes Reinsurance v. Steven Pomarico, 294 F. App'x 501 (11th Cir. 2008).

294 F. App'x 501 (Great Lakes Reinsurance v. Steven Pomarico) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wilton v. Seven Falls Co.
515 U.S. 277 (Supreme Court, 1995)
Carnival Corp. v. Carlisle
953 So. 2d 461 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2007)