L.B. HARVEY MARINE, INC., A FLA. CORP., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
M/V "RIVER ARC" IN REM, HER ENGINES, TACKLE, FURNISHINGS, AND OTHER APPURTENANCES, AND OWNERS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appeal is dismissed as moot because the vessel, the res, has left the court's in rem jurisdiction.
Harvey filed an in rem action against the M/V RIVER ARC for an unpaid balance and services, leading to an arrest warrant. The district court dissolved…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Res cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Harvey filed a complaint in rem against M/V RIVER ARC, alleging an unpaid balance for equipment installed and services performed on the vessel, and claiming a maritime lien. The district court issued a warrant of arrest in rem. Following a post-seizure hearing the district court dissolved the warrant of arrest. Harvey filed a notice of appeal but did not request a stay of the order dissolving the arrest nor did it file a supersedeas bond.
It appeared from the briefs that the RIVER ARC was scheduled to sail from the Port of Miami on the day the district court entered its order dissolving the arrest warrant. Since nothing in the record or briefs indicated that the vessel did not sail as planned, this court directed the parties to file briefs on the issue of whether the appeal should be dismissed as moot because the vessel had left the jurisdiction of the court. The parties have filed their briefs, and while there is no specific stipulation both acknowledge that the vessel did depart from the jurisdiction.
The appeal must be dismissed as moot. In a maritime case, where the res is no longer before the court, its in rem jurisdiction is destroyed, and any appeal from its decision is moot. Taylor v. Tracor Marine, Inc., 683 F. 2d 1361, 1362 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 1252, 75 L.Ed.2d 481 (1983).
The presence of the res within a court’s territorial jurisdiction is necessary before the court can proceed to adjudication. Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 1063, at 203, Sec. 1070, at 270. Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. Unidentified Wrecked and Abandoned Sailing Vessel (Treasure Salvors I), 569 F. 2d 330 (5th Cir.1978), involved a shipwreck located partly inside and partly outside of the district court’s territorial jurisdiction. The parties had consented to the district court’s exercise of in rem jurisdiction. It was physically impossible to bring the extraterritorial part of the wreck inside the court’s jurisdiction, and the district court had done what it could to seize the remainder of the res. In Treasure Salvors III, 640 F. 2d 560 (5th Cir.1981), we noted that the district court in Treasure Salvors I had in personam federal question jurisdiction over the claimants.
Therefore, it was not necessary to rely on in rem jurisdiction over the absent res because the parties had submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court by consent. 640 F. 2d at 566.
A consent to transfer jurisdiction to another district court under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1404(a) may suffice to permit a transferee forum to exercise in rem jurisdiction even though the res is not located within the district’s territorial jurisdiction. Continental Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19, 21-24, 80 S.Ct. 1470, 1472-74, 4 L.Ed.2d 1540, (1969); In Re International Marine Towing, Inc., 617 F. 2d 362, 363 (5th Cir. 1980).
Appellee does not consent to in rem jurisdiction of the district court once the res departed or in rem jurisdiction in this court. Accidental, fraudulent, or improper removal of the res from the district does not destroy in rem jurisdiction once it existed, The Rio Grande, 90 U.S. (23 Wall.) 458, 465, 23 L.Ed. 158 (1874); Platoro, Ltd. v. Unidentified Remains of a Vessel, 508 F. 2d 1113, 1116 (5th Cir.1975), but there are no charges of impropriety in this instance.
Appellant argues that the vessel regularly returns to the Port of Miami and thus it could be arrested again if judgment is in appellant’s favor. But, as pointed out above, there must be in rem jurisdiction to proceed to adjudication. This court cannot go forward on appeal on the basis that RIVER ARC may return.
Appellant argues that it is fundamentally unfair not to adjudicate the merits of the case. But there are various methods to protect appellate jurisdiction in an in rem case. See Bank of New Orleans & Trust Co. v. Marine Credit Corp., 583 F. 2d 1063, 1068-69 (8th Cir.1978); Parks v. B.F. Leaman & Sons, 279 F. 2d 529 (5th Cir.1960); The Kotkas, 135 F. 2d 917, 918 (5th Cir. 1943); Canal Steel Works, Inc. v. One Drag Line Dredge, 48 F. 2d 212, 213 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 284 U.S. 647, 52 S.Ct. 29, 76 L.Ed. 550 (1931).
The appeal must be DISMISSED as moot.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Four Parcels OF Real Prop. IN Greene & Tuscaloosa Cntys. IN THE State OF Ala., 941 F.2d 1428 (11th Cir. 1991)…to warehouse in Missouri, appellate court had no in rem jurisdiction over claimant’s appeal); see also United States v. One (1) 1983 Homemade Vessel Named “Barracuda,” 858 F. 2d 643, 647 (11th Cir.1988); L.B. Harvey Marine, Inc. v. M/V “River Arc, ” 712 F. 2d 458, 459 (11th Cir.1983). Daniel argues, however, that when the district court released the dozer from custody, we lost in rem jurisdiction over the Government’s appeal even though the doz-er, pursuant to Daniel’s promise, remains within the territori…
-
Incas & Monterey Printing & Packaging, Ltd. v. M/V Sang JIN, 747 F.2d 958 (5th Cir. 1984)…the jurisdiction of the court and thus rendering moot any appeal therefrom. Seaboard and Caribbean Transport Corp. v. Hafen-Dampfschiffahrt A. G., 329 F. 2d 538, 1964 A.M.C. 2109 (5th Cir.1964). See also L.B. Harvey Marine, Inc. v. M/V “RIVER ARC,” 712 F. 2d 458, 459, 1984 A.M.C. 1588 (11th Cir.1983) (in maritime action, where res is no longer before the court, in rem jurisdiction destroyed); Taylor v. Tracor Marine, Inc., 683 F. 2d 1361, 1362, 1983 A.M.C. 2968 (11th Cir.1982) (same holding), cert. denied,…
-
United States v. ONE Lear JET Aircraft, 836 F.2d 1571 (11th Cir. 1988)…does not have jurisdiction to hear Leybda’s appeal. The general rule of in rem jurisdiction is that the court’s power derives entirely from its control over the defendant res. Id. at 272, 37 S.Ct. at 283; L.B. Harvey Marine, Inc. v. M/V River Arc, 712 F. 2d 458, 459 (11th Cir.1983). Where an appellant fails to file a stay of judgment or a supersedeas bond, and the res is removed from the court’s territorial jurisdiction, the appellate court does not have in rem jurisdiction. Taylor v. Tracor Marine, Inc.,…1 / 3
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Cont'l Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19 (U.S. 1960)
- The Rio Grande, 23 Wall. 458 (U.S. 1874)
- Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. The Unidentified Wrecked & Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 569 F.2d 330 (5th Cir. 1978)
- Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. The Unidentified Wrecked & Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 640 F.2d 560 (5th Cir. 1981)
- Platoro Ltd., Inc. v. The Unidentified Remains OF A Vessel, 508 F.2d 1113 (5th Cir. 1975)
- Courtnay Taylor v. Tracor Marine, Inc., 683 F.2d 1361 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Canal Steel Works, Inc. v. One Drag Line Dredge, 48 F.2d 212 (5th Cir. 1931)
- The Bank OF NEW Orleans & Tr. Co. v. Marine Credit Corp., 583 F.2d 1063 (8th Cir. 1978)
- Bullard v. City OF Cisco, 48 F.2d 212 (5th Cir. 1931)
- The Kotkas. Estonian State Cargo & Passenger S. S. Line v. Kaiv, 135 F.2d 917 (5th Cir. 1943)