Primera Maritime Ltd. v. Jiangsu Eastern Heavy Industry Co.

Second Circuit

Primera Maritime Ltd. v. Jiangsu Eastern Heavy Industry Co.

355 F. App'x 477

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 4, 2009

Docket09-0642-cv

StatusUnpublished

This text of 355 F. App'x 477 (Primera Maritime Ltd. v. Jiangsu Eastern Heavy Industry Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Primera Maritime Ltd. v. Jiangsu Eastern Heavy Industry Co., 355 F. App'x 477 (2d Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiffs-Appellants (“Primera”) appeal from a Memorandum Opinion and Order, dated January 30, 2009, of the District Court for the Southern District of New York (Koeltl, J.), dismissing their complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

For a century and a half it has been the Supreme Court’s rule that a dispute arising from a contract to build a ship does not fall within the federal courts’ admiralty jurisdiction. Thames Towboat Co. v. Francis McDonald, 254 U.S. 242, 244, 41 S.Ct. 65, 65 L.Ed. 245 (1920); People’s Ferry Co. v. Beers, 61 U.S.(20 How.) 393, 402, 15 L.Ed. 961 (1857). This Court has long held the same. CTI-Container Leasing Corp. v. Oceanic Operations Corp., 682 F.2d 377, 380 n. 4 (2d Cir.1982); The Ada, *478 250 F. 194, 198 (2d Cir.1918) (Rogers, J., concurring).

Primera argues that this rule has been implicitly overruled by recent decisions of both the Supreme Court and this Court. See Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. James N. Kirby, Pty Ltd., 543 U.S. 14, 125 S.Ct. 385, 160 L.Ed.2d 283 (2004); Folksamerica Reinsurance Co. v. Clean Water of New York, Inc., 413 F.3d 307 (2d Cir.2005). Primera is correct to point out that the conceptual approach taken in those cases suggests that modern principles disfavor per se admiralty rules based on the site of a contract’s formation or performance. See Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 543 U.S. at 24, 125 S.Ct. 385; Folksamerica, 413 F.3d at 314-15.

Such arguments, however, do not relieve this Court of its obligation to apply the well-established rule that directly controls the outcome of this case. See Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Exp., Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484, 109 S.Ct. 1917, 104 L.Ed.2d 526 (1989); United States v. Gomez, 580 F.3d 94, 104 (2d Cir.2009). Until the Supreme Court declares that contracts for ship construction are maritime in nature, disputes arising from such contracts will not give rise to the federal courts’ admiralty jurisdiction. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiffs-Appellants (“Primera”) appeal from a Memorandum Opinion and Order, dated January 30, 2009, of the District Court for the Southern District of New York (Koeltl, J.), dismissing their complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

For a century and a half it has been the Supreme Court’s rule that a dispute arising from a contract to build a ship does not fall within the federal courts’ admiralty jurisdiction. Thames Towboat Co. v. Francis McDonald, 254 U.S. 242, 244, 41 S.Ct. 65, 65 L.Ed. 245 (1920); People’s Ferry Co. v. Beers, 61 U.S.(20 How.) 393, 402, 15 L.Ed. 961 (1857). This Court has long held the same. CTI-Container Leasing Corp. v. Oceanic Operations Corp., 682 F.2d 377, 380 n. 4 (2d Cir.1982); The Ada, *478 250 F. 194, 198 (2d Cir.1918) (Rogers, J., concurring).

Primera argues that this rule has been implicitly overruled by recent decisions of both the Supreme Court and this Court. See Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. James N. Kirby, Pty Ltd., 543 U.S. 14, 125 S.Ct. 385, 160 L.Ed.2d 283 (2004); Folksamerica Reinsurance Co. v. Clean Water of New York, Inc., 413 F.3d 307 (2d Cir.2005). Primera is correct to point out that the conceptual approach taken in those cases suggests that modern principles disfavor per se admiralty rules based on the site of a contract’s formation or performance. See Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 543 U.S. at 24, 125 S.Ct. 385; Folksamerica, 413 F.3d at 314-15.

Such arguments, however, do not relieve this Court of its obligation to apply the well-established rule that directly controls the outcome of this case. See Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Exp., Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484, 109 S.Ct. 1917, 104 L.Ed.2d 526 (1989); United States v. Gomez, 580 F.3d 94, 104 (2d Cir.2009). Until the Supreme Court declares that contracts for ship construction are maritime in nature, disputes arising from such contracts will not give rise to the federal courts’ admiralty jurisdiction. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

355 F. App'x 477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/primera-maritime-ltd-v-jiangsu-eastern-heavy-industry-co-ca2-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack