Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): met where kayakers fell overboard and a rescue mission was attempted, because the “efficacy of search-and-rescue operations has a direct effect on the health and lives of seamen”). The second prong, which we have interpreted broadly, likewise is easily met. In Gruver, 489 F.3d at 984-86, for instance, a seaman was assaulted by a former maritime employer while the seaman slept in his ship, docked at a pier. The origin of the dispute lay in allegedly unpaid wages by the former employer. Id. We held that the lens through which to examine the relevant activity was the underlying wage dispute; because that dispute concerned maritime wages, the second prong was met. Id.; see also Mission Bay Jet Sports, LLC v. Colombo (In re Mission Bay Jet Sports, LLC), 570 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). The activity here, whether characterized as a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the locality requirement for admiralty jurisdiction was met only to the extent that the claims arose from exposures that occurred on navigable waters (B) holding that a jetski injury met the second prong because the activity in question  operating a vessel in navigable waters  has a maritime connection (C) holding that federal maritime law and not state law applies to all actions for wrongful death in navigable state waters (D) holding that wetlands adjacent to navigable waters are included in the term territorial waters (E) holding that platform workers death caused by an explosion on a platform bore no significant relation to maritime law even though the death occurred while the worker was located on a vessel in navigable waters
Output (English): holding that the locality requirement for admiralty jurisdiction was met only to the extent that the claims arose from exposures that occurred on navigable waters