In a classic admiralty, multi-country, CivPro wonky fashion, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals just issued a decision analyzing the basic jurisdiction of the federal courts to enforce foreign judgments arising from admiralty cases.
The case is D'amico Dry Limited v. Priemera Maritime (Hellas) Ltd., et al. and the opinion can be found here.
By way of jurisdictional background, the federal courts have jurisdiction to hear admiralty cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1333 which provides:
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.
(2) Any prize brought into the United States and all proceedings for the condemnation of property taken as prize.
A vessel operator sought to hedge its risks when its vessels were unutilized by selling its routes as an option or futures contract. It sold such a contract to a shipper and the shipper defaulted on the obligation to pay.
Vessel operator brought a claim in England and its claim was heard in commercial court, not admiralty court. Because these futures contracts do not involve the actual shipment of goods, English courts do not consider the contracts to be maritime in nature. The operator sought to enforce the judgment in the United States and the districtu court dismissed its claim because the claim was not maritime in nature.
The Second Circuit found the claim to be maritime in nature and reversed the trial court's decision.
The Court found that whether a claim was maritime in nature was the appropriate inquiry for jurisdiction and not which court issued the judgment/award. In the modern international shipping world, foreign judgments are becoming commonplace and this is an important decision to help practitioners discern jurisdiction for enforcement of those judgments/awards.