FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEP 21, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 26 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 7- cv -0 06 14 -SDM- MAP ODYSSEY MARINE EXPLORATION, INC., Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us THE UNIDENTIFIED SHIPWRECKED VE SSEL, it s ap pa rel , tac kl e, ap pu rte na nc es an d c arg o l oc at edwithi n c en te r po in t co or di na te s, In Rem . Defen da nt , KINGDOM OF SPAIN, Cl ai m an t-Ap pe ll ee, REPUBLIC OF PERU, GONZALO DE AL IAGA, th e Co un t o f San Ju ande Luri ganc ho , AGUSTIN DE A LIAGA, th e cu rren t M arque s d e Zal ad a d el Fu en te , GONZALO ALVAREZ DEL VILL AR, et a l., Cl ai m an ts .__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 31 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 7- cv -0 06 14 -SDM- MAP ODYSSEY MARINE EXPLORATION, INC., Pl ai nt iff , ve rs us THE UNIDENTIFIED SHIPWRECKED VE SSEL, it s ap pa rel , tac kl e, ap pu rte na nc es an d c arg o l oc at edwithi n cen te r po in t co or di na te s, In Rem , Defen da nt , GONZALO DE AL IAGA, th e Co un t o f San Ju ande Luri ganc ho , AGUSTIN DE A LIAGA, th e cu rren t M arque s d e Zel ad a d el Fu en te , GONZALO ALVAREZ DEL VILL AR, IGNACIO DE COLMENARES, th e 1 1t h C ou ntof P ol en ti no s, ALBERTO EMILIO THIESSEN, ENRIQUETA PITA DU THURBURU, FLORA LEONOR PERALES CALDE RON DE COLMENARES, FELIPE VOYEST, ADELA A RMI DA DE IZCUE BAZO, CAROLA DAIREAUX KINSKY, ELEONO RA DAIREAUX KINSKY, MATILDE DAIREAUX KINSKY, JULIO VEGA EURASQUIN, INEZ MARQUEZ OSORIO, 2JAVIER DE GOYENECHE,

th e cu rren t Co un t o f Gua qu i an d M arque s d e Vil la fu en te , JUAN MARI ANO DE GOYENECHE Y SIL VELA, th e cu rren t M arque s o f Cas a Dav il a, Cl ai m an ts -Ap pe ll an ts , KINGDOM OF SPAIN, Cl ai m an t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 31 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 7- cv -0 06 14 -SDM- MAP ODYSSEY MARINE EXPLORATION, INC., Pl ai nt iff , ve rs us THE UNIDENTIFIED SHIPWRECKED VE SSEL, it s ap pa rel , tac kl e, ap pu rte na nc es an d c arg o l oc at edwithi n cen te r po in t co or di na te s, In Rem , Defen da nt , ELSA DORCA W HITLOCK, f.k.a . Els a Dor ca Ru iz , Cl ai m an t-Ap pe ll an t, KINGDOM OF SPAIN, Cl ai m an t-Ap pe ll ee. 3__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 31 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 7- cv -0 06 14 -SDM- MAP ODYSSEY MARINE EXPLORATION, INC., Pl ai nt iff , ve rs us THE UNIDENTIFIED SHIPWRECKED VE SSEL, it s ap pa rel , tac kl e, ap pu rte na nc es an d c arg o l oc at edwithi n cen te r po in t co or di na te s, In Rem , Defen da nt , REPUBLIC OF PERU, Cl ai m an t-Ap pe ll an t, KINGDOM OF SPAIN, Cl ai m an t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 32 0

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 7- cv -0 06 14 -SDM- MAP ODYSSEY MARINE EXPLORATION, INC., Pl ai nt iff , 4ve rs us

THE UNIDENTIFIED SHIPWRECKED VE SSEL, it s ap pa rel , tac kl e, ap pu rte na nc es an d c arg o l oc at edwithi n cen te r po in t co or di na te s, In Rem , Defen da nt , SANTIAGO DE ALVEAR, EMILIO DE ALVEA R, MARIA EUGENIA SOLVEYRA, ALEJANDRO JULIAN PERA BARTHE’, AGUSTINA SOLVEY RA, IGNACIO SOLVEYRA, Cl ai m an ts -Ap pe ll an ts , KINGDOM OF SPAIN, Cl ai m an t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 37 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 7- cv -0 06 14 -SDM- MAP ODYSSEY MARINE EXPLORATION, INC., Pl ai nt iff , ve rs us THE UNIDENTIFIED SHIPWRECKED VE SSEL, it s ap pa rel , tac kl e, ap pu rte na nc es an d c arg o l oc at edwithi n cen te r po in t co or di na te s, In Rem , 5Defen da nt ,

DR. JAIM E DURAND PALA CIOS, Cl ai m an t-Ap pe ll an t, KINGDOM OF SPAIN, Cl ai m an t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 37 5

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 7- cv -0 06 14 -SDM- MAP ODYSSEY MARINE EXPLORATION, INC., Pl ai nt iff , ve rs us THE UNIDENTIFIED SHIPWRECKED VE SSEL, it s ap pa rel , tac kl e, ap pu rte na nc es an d c arg o l oc at edwithi n cen te r po in t co or di na te s, In Rem , Defen da nt , JOSE ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ-MENENDEZ, a.k .a. Jo se ph Ant ho ny Rodrig ue z, Cl ai m an t-Ap pe ll an t, KINGDOM OF SPAIN, Cl ai m an t-Ap pe ll ee. 6__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Sep te m be r 21 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, BLACK andSTAPLETON, Cir cu itJu dg es . * BLACK, Ci rcu itJu dg e: In20 07 , Ody ss ey

Mari ne Exp lo rat io n, In c. (Ody ss ey ) di sc ov eredth e rem ai ns of a19 th Cen tu ry Sp an is h v es se l i n i nt ern at io na l wat ers westof t he Str ai ts of Gib ral ta r. Odysse y

fil eda ve rif

ie d a dm ira lt y

co m pl ai nt in rem ag ai ns t t he sh ip wreck edve ss el an d i ts carg o i n t he Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a an d a ls o s ou gh t a warra ntof a rres t. The Kin gd om of S pa in(Sp ai n) , th e Rep ub li c o f Peru (Peru ),
an d t wen ty-fiv e in di vi du al s fi le d c la im s ag ai ns t t he re s . Upo n re cei vi ng ad di ti on al in fo rm at io n abo utth e v es se l’s i de nt it y , Spa inals o fi le d am ot io n t o d is m is s. Sp ai n arg ue d, wi th ou t wai vi ng it s s ov erei gn imm un it y , th atth e res was a Sp an is h
wars hi p a ndth e d is tri ctco urt thu s l ack edsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ov er Odysse y ’s cla im s b ecau se th e v es se l was imm un e fro m jud ic ia l arres t u nd er the Fo rei gn So ve rei gn Im

m un it ie s Act(FSIA), 2 8 U.S.C. § § 1 60 2- 16 11 . The d is tri ct

Honora ble Walter K. Stapleton, United States Circuit J udg e for the Third Circuit, sitting * by designation. 7co urt g ran te d S pa in ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s, co nc lu di ng th e re s was th e sh ip wreckof a

su nk enSp an is h war sh ip an d was en ti tl edto so ve rei gn im m un it y . Havi ng de te rm in edth atth e re s is “ imm un e fro m . . . arre st ” in Uni te d S ta te s co urts , we affi rm . 28 U.S.C. § 1 60 9. I. BACKGROUND Odysse y is a de ep -o cean ex pl or at io n a ndsh ip wreckreco ve ry bu si ne ss . In 20 06 , Ody ss ey

be ga n wh atitcal le d t he Am st erd am Pro ject, re se arch in g s hi ps th at sa nkina he av il y -tr av el edarea , whi ch in cl ud edanareaoff th e co as t o f Gib ral ta r. Odysse y de ve lo pe d ali stof t arg etve ss el s t o s earc h fo r, on e o f whi ch was t he Nu es tr a Sen or a de la s Mer cedes ( Mer cedes ), a Sp an is h v es se l t ha t s an k i n 1 80 4. Acco rd in g t o Od y ss ey , it“ reco gn iz [ed ] th atSp ai n m ay ha ve ha d acu ltur al (if

no t le ga l) i nt eres t i n v es se ls th atm ay be lo cat edwithi n the Am st erd am area , [an d] in vi te d S pa in to parti ci pa te in th e p ro ject.” Ody ss ey ’s Res p. t o S pa in ’s Mo ti on to Dis m is s, Dkt. 1 38 at 3 . Ody ss ey ’s CEO andco un se l t he n m etwith a rep res en ta ti ve fro m

Sp ai n’s M in is try of Cu ltur e. Wha t o ccu rredat t he m eet in g i s di sp ut ed , bu t b ot h Od y ss ey an d S pa in ag ree S pa in di d n otgi ve Odysse y ap pr ov al to sal va ge an y

su nk enSp an is h v es se ls
. InMarc h 2 00 7, wh il e Odyss ey was s urve y in g t he Am st erd am area , Odysse y di sc ov ereda sh ip wreckin in te rn at io na l wat ers 10 0 m il es westof t he 8Strai ts of Gi br al ta r ata de pt h o f 1,1 00 m et ers . The remains of t he sh ip wreck ed

ve ss el were s pr eadov er the seabe d i n a n a rea 3 68 m et ers lo ng an d 1 10 m et ers wid e. Odysse y

co nduc te d ade ta il edsu rv ey of t he sh ip wreckbe fo re d is tu rb in g a ny art ifa ct s o n t he oc ean flo oran d t he n b eg anto reco ve r ob jects fro m

th e si te . Odysse y ul ti m at el y

reco ve redap pr ox im at el y 59 4,0 00 co in s an d anu m be r of ot he r sm al l arti fact s. On Ap ril 9, 2 00 7, Ody ss ey fil eda ve rif

ie d c om pl ai ntag ai ns t “ The Uni de nt ifi edSh ip wreck edVess el , it s ap pa rel , tac kl e, ap pu rte na nc es an d c arg o” in th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a. The c om pl ai ntli st eda po ss es so ry an d o wne rs hi p cl ai m pu rs ua ntto th e la w of fi nd s (C ou ntOne) , as wel l as a sa lv ag e awardcla im pu rs ua ntto th e la w of s al va ge (Co un t Two ). It al so no te d Od y ss ey ’s in te ntto 1 de po si t wi th th e co urt fo r sym bo li c arr es t in rem a small b ro nz e b lo ckreco ve red fro m th e sh ip wreck
. On Ap ril 11 , Ody ss ey

fil eda m ot io n fo r anord er d ire ct in g t he cle rkto is su e a warra ntof a rres t in rem ag ai ns t t he sh ip wreck edve ss el , it s ap pa rel , tac kl e, ap pu rte na nc es , andcarg o. Ody ss ey expl ai ne d i ts in te ntto co nt in ue to reco ve r art ifa ct s fr om

th e si te , andth e m ot io n p ro vi de d t ha t al l arti fact s an d o bjec ts
The c omplaint also sought a de clar atory judgme nt that no gove rnment had the authority 1 to interfer e with Ody ssey ’s exploration or rec overy of the ve ssel. This claim is not before us on appea l. 9reco ve redwou ldbe tu rn edov er t o t he U.S. Mars ha l o r to a subs ti tu te cu st od ia n

ap po in te d b y

th e co urt fo r sym

bo li c arre st in rem . Upo n o rd er o f th e m ag is tra te jud ge , th e cl erkis su eda W arra ntof Arr es t In Rem ag ai ns t t he sh ip wreck edve ss el
an d i ts ap pa rel , tac kl e, ap pu rte na nc es , andcarg o. Th e warrantco m m an de d t he U.S. Mars ha l t o t ak e p os se ss io n o f th e b ro nz e b lo ck an d a ny futur e art ifa ct s reco ve redfro m

th e sh ip wreck edve ss el . The co urt t he n i ss ue d a n o rd er ap po in ti ng Odysse y as s ub st itut e cu st od ia n o f th e sh ip wreck edve ss el an d a ny reco ve red art ifa ct s “ un ti l fu rth er o rd er o f th is Co urt.” Ord. Ap po in ti ng Subs ti tu te Cu st od ia n 2 at2. Afte r Odysse y

publ is he d ano ti ce o f arre st , Spa infil eda ve rif ie d c la im to th e v es se l an d i ts co nt en ts an d c arg o. OnJu ne 19 , 20 07 , Spa in fil eda m ot io n fo r a m or e d efi ni te st at em en t an d fo r di sc lo su re o f ot he r in fo rm at io n i de nt ifyin g t he
ve ss el an d i ts co nt en ts . In t he alt ern at iv e, Sp ai n s ou gh t an ord er d is m is si ng th e co m pl ai nt , vac at in g t he arre st , andterm in at in g Od y ss ey ’s app oi nt m en t as subs ti tu te cu st od ian. Sp ai n c la im edOdysse y ha d n otco m

pl ie d wi th th e he ig ht en edpl ead in g re qu ire m en ts for in rem co m pl ai nt s i n a dm ira lt y , se e Fed . R. Ci v. P., Adm . Sup p. R. C (2 )(b ), an d h adfai le d t o p ro vi de in fo rm at io n i nd ic at in g
The district cour

t found Ody ssey

was “ duly

qualified to ser

ve as the Substi tute Custodian 2 of ar tifact re cover ed fr om the Def endant Shipwre cked V essel” a nd had “a g ree d to assume the responsibility

of saf ekeeping the salvag ed ar

tifacts.” O rd. AppointingSubsti tute Custodian at 2. 10th e o rig in or n at io na li ty of th e v es se l an d wh ethe r th e v es se l was a m il it ary sh ip or

ot he r so ve rei gn pro pe rty of a fo rei gn na ti on . Spa in st at edth atsu ch in fo rm at io n was rel ev an t t o the co urt’s s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on , as t he pro pe rty of a
so ve rei gn na ti onwou ldbe imm un e fro m arre stun de r th e FSIA. In ad di ti on , Spa in arg ue d t he de ta il s p ro vi de d i n t he co m pl ai ntwere i ns uf

fic ie ntto all ow Sp ai n t o de te rm in e whe th er t o i nv ok e so ve rei gn imm un ity of t he re s fro m

arre st . Odysse y res po nd edby fili ng anam en de d c om pl ai nton Aug us t 6 , 20 07 . It in cl ud edth e sa m e in rem po ss es so ry an d s al va ge cla im s as Odysse y ’s ori gi na l
co m pl ai nt(Co un ts One a ndTwo). The am en de d c om pl ai ntals o s ta te d Od y ss ey 3
wou ldpre se ntit s Pr el im in ary Si te Ass es sm en t t o t he co urt u nd er s eal , and Odysse y wou ldrel eas e in fo rm at io n fr om th e as se ss m en t t o S pa in as d ire ct edby th e co urt. Ody ss ey

cla im ed , ho wev er, i t h ad“ fo un d n o e vi de nc e whi ch wou ld
co nf irm th e id en ti ty of a s hi p o r anin te res t o f Sp ai n o r an y ot he r th irdpa rty in t hi s pa rti cu la r si te .” Am en de d C om pl ., Dkt . 21 at 6 . On Se pt em

be r 19 , 20 07 , Spa in fil eda m ot io n t o d is m is s Ody ss ey ’s am en de d
co m pl ai nt , cla im in g Od y ss ey ’s in rem cl ai m s o nc e ag ai n fa il edto m eetth e
Ody ssey ’s amende d complaint also raise d in personam claims ag ainst Spain that did not 3 appea r in the orig inal complaint. These in personam claims, as we ll as Ody ssey ’s dec laratory judgme nt claim raised in both the or igina l and amende d complaints, were later dismissed by the district court and a

re not a t issue in this appea l. 11pl ead in g re qu ire m en ts foradm ira lt y act io ns in rem . Spa in als o a sk edth e co urt t o va cat e th e arr es t an d t erm in at e Odyss ey ’s app oi nt m en t as subs ti tu te cu st od ia n. Alt ho ug h t he di stric t co urt u lt im at el y de ni edth is m ot io n, i t d ire ct edOdysse y to di sc lo se cert ai n i nf

orm at io n re la ti ng to th e v es se l’s p os si bl e id en ti ty. In r es po ns e to in te rro ga to rie s fr om

th e co urt, Ody ss ey

st at edth ere was no co nf irmatio n t he si te rep res en te d a ny spe ci fic ve ss el , bu t d is cl os editwas c on si de rin g the po ss ib il it y th e si te was re la te d t o t he Sp an is h v es se l, the “ Nu es tr a Sen or a de la s Mer cedes y la s Ani mas .” Upo n thi s d is cl os ur e, Sp ai n c la im edth e Mer cedes was aSp an is h R oyal Nav y Fri ga te th atex pl od edan d s an k i n c om ba t i n 1 80 4 a ndwas the refo re s ub ject to so ve rei gn imm

un it y fro m all cla im s o r arre stin th e Uni te d S ta te s p ur su an t t o t he FSIA. Sp ai n a cco rd in gl y fil eda m ot io n t o d is m is s fo r la ckof s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on pu rs ua ntto Fed . R. Civ . P. 12 (b )(1 ) or , inth e al te rn at iv e, to gra nt su m m ary jud gm en t i n S pa in ’s fav orpu rs ua ntto Fed . R. Civ . P. 56 (a). Sp ai n cl ai m editwas “ in di sp ut ab le ” th e re s was the Mer cedes , “ a wars hi p o f th e Ro y al Nav y of S pa inwhi ch is subjec t t o i m m un it y fro m Odysse y ’s cla im s i n t hi s C ou rt an d i s n otsubjec t t o s al va ge ag ai ns t t he wis he s o f Sp ai n.” Sp ai n’s M ot . to Dis m is s orforSum

m ary Ju dg m en t, Dkt. 1 31 at 1 -2 . Spa in reque st edth e Co urt d is m is s t he cl ai m s ag ai ns t t he re s , vac at e th e arr es t, wi th dr aw Odysse y ’s des ig na ti onas 12subs ti tu te cu st od ian, an d d ire ctth atth e art ifa ct s i n Od y ss ey ’s cus to dy be turne d

ov er t o t he cu st od y

of S pa in . Ody ss ey

res po nd edth ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to de te rm in e th e re s was t he Mer ced es , th e FSIA was no t a ju ris di ct io na l b ar i n th is cas e, an d s ov erei gn imm un it y wou ldno t b ar Ody ss ey ’s sal va ge cla im . In ad di ti on , Ody ss ey

arg ue d t ha t i f, as Sp ai n c on te st ed , th e co urt d idno t h av e juri sd ic ti on ov er the re s , th e co urt was witho utpo wer t o o rd er the art ifa ct s turne d
ov er t o S pa in
. The po ss ib le id en ti fic at io n o f th e v es se l as th e Mer cedes br ou gh t fo rwarda nu m be r of ad di ti on al cla im an ts . Twenty -fi ve cla im an ts fil edcla im s, ar gu in g t he y ha d a n i nt eres t i n t he carg o abo ardth e v es se l. Twen ty-fou r of th e in di vi du al s al le ge d t he y

were d es cen da nt s o f in di vi du al s wi th carg o abo ardth e Mer cedes , and
on e in di vi du al cla im edanan ces tra l i nt eres t i n any of Sp ai n’s t reas ur e in Flo rid a. Inad di ti on , Perufil eda cl ai m co nt en di ng itha d s ov erei gnrig ht s t o p ro pe rty ab oa rdth e Mer cedes th atori gi na te d i n i ts territ ory or wa s p ro du cedby its pe op le
. On J un e 3 , 20 09 , th e m ag is tra te jud ge is su eda Rep ort an d R eco m m en da ti on fin di ng th e re s was t he Mer cedes an d was th e p ro pe rty of Sp ai n. Th e m ag is tra te jud ge co nc lu de d tha t u nd er the FSIA the co urt was witho utjuri sd ic ti on to ad jud ic at e th e in rem sal va ge an d p os se ss ory cla im s ag ai ns t t he Mer cedes an d i ts

13carg o. Th e m ag is tra te jud ge reco m m en de d t he di st ric t ju dg e g ran t Sp ai n’s m ot io n to di sm is s an d d ire ctOdysse y , as s ub st itut e cu st od ia n, t o re tu rnth e res to Sp ai n. Odysse y , Peru , andth e d es cen da ntcla im an ts ob jecte d t o t he m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort. The Uni te d S ta te s fi le d aSta te m en t o f In te res t as Am ic us Cu ria e in Supp ort o f th e Kin gd om

of S pa in . It arg ue d the Uni te d S ta te s h ada tr eat y ob li ga ti on to affo rdsu nk enSp an is h war sh ip s t he same pro te ct io ns an d i m m un it ie s fro m im pl ie d aba nd on m en t an d u nc on te st edacce ss an d s al va ge as asu nk enUni te d St at es wars hi p wo ul d re cei ve in Uni te d S ta te s co urts . The di stric t co urt ad op te d t he m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on in ful l o n Dec em

be r 22 , 20 09 . The d is tri ctco urt d is m is se d Od y ss ey ’s am en de d
co m pl ai ntforlac k o f subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on , vac at edth e in rem arre st , and
or de redOdysse y

to return t he re s to Sp ai n. Th e o rd er t o re tu rnth e re s was s ta y ed pe nd in g t hi s ap pe al
. On ap pe al , Ody ss ey , Peru , andth e twe nt y -fi ve in di vi du al cla im an ts co nt en d th e d is tri ctco urt erredby: (1) fai li ng to us e a Ru le 56 su m m ary jud gm en t s ta nd ard whe n ana lyzin g S pa in ’s Rul e 1 2( b) (1 ) m ot io n t o d is m is s; (2) fai li ng to co nduc t an or al ev id en ti ary he ari ng be fo re ru li ng on th e m ot io n t o d is m is s; (3) fin di ng th e re s is th e Sp an is h war sh ip th e Mer cedes an d h ol di ng th e FSIA g ran ts itso ve rei gn

14imm

un it y ; (4 ) fai li ng to di st in gu is h b etweenth e Mer cedes an d t he pri va te carg o ab oa rd ; an d (5 ) or de rin g t he reco ve red re s returne d t o S pa in ’s cus to dy. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Whe n e va lu at in g adi st ric t co urt’s co nc lu si on s o n aRu le 12 (b )(1 ) m ot io n,

“ [w]e revi ew th e d is tri ctco urt’s l eg al co nc lu si on s de no vo an d i ts factua l fi nd in gs fo r cl ear e rro r.” Ca rmi ch ae l v. Ke ll og g, Br ow n & Roo t S

ervs ., Inc
. , 57 2 F .3d12 71 , 12 79 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ); se e a ls o L aw re nc e v. Dun ba r , 91 9 F .2d15 25 , 15 30 (11 th Ci r. 19 90 ) (“ The us ua l s ta nd ardof r ev ie win g adi stric t co urt’s fi nd in gs of juri sd ic ti on al fact s i s t he cle arl y erro ne ou s s ta nd ard .”). “ As we h av e rep eat ed ly he ld , th e ‘clear ly erron eo us ’ st an da rdis hi gh ly defer en ti al .” Ca rmi ch ae l , 57 2 F .3d at12 80 . W e m

us t af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d et erm in at io n “ so lo ng as i t i s pl au si bl e in li gh t o f th e rec or d v ie wedin it s en ti ret y .” Merri ll St even s Dr

y Doc k Co . v. M/V Y

EOCOMICO II

, 32 9 F .3d80 9, 8 16 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s om it te d) ; se e a ls o Un iv . of Ga. Ath le ti c Ass 'n v . Lai te, 75 6 F .2d15 35 , 15 43 (11 th Ci r. 19 85 ) (“ Whi le th e ‘clear ly erron eo us ’ st an da rdof r ev ie w is les s s tri ng en t t ha n th e wel l-kno wn s po rts rul e, ‘T he refe ree i s al way s ri gh t,’ it n ev ert he le ss pre se nt s a fo rm id ab le ch al le ng e to ap pe ll an ts who
. . . se ekto ov erturn t he factua l fi nd in gs of a d is tri ctco urt.”)
.

15W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on no t t o h ol d an e vi de nt iary he ari ng for
anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Se e Mo ra n v . Kin gdom o f S au di Ara bi a , 27 F.3d16 9, 1 71
- 72 (5t h C ir. 1 99 4) (rev ie win g adi st ric t co urt’s fa il ur e to co nduc t anev id en ti ary he ari ng on a pa rty’ s R

ul e 1 2( b) (1 ) m ot io n fo r la ckof s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on un de r th e FSIA fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n)
. III. DISC USSION A. Did

th e dis tr ic t co ur t a

pp lyth e co rr ect

st an da rd in eva lu at in g S

pa in ’s mot io n t o d is mis s? The di stric t co urt ev al ua te d S pa in ’s Fed . R. Civ . P. 12 (b )(1 ) m ot io n t o di sm is s fo r la ckof s ub

ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on un de r th e st an dardap pl ie d t o R ul e 12 (b )(1 ) m ot io ns ass ert edon factua l g ro un ds . This Co urt h as ex pl ai ne d t ha t wh en a p art y rai se s a f actua l at ta ckto subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on–a s o pp os edto a faci al ch al le ng e b as edm erel y

on th e al le ga ti on s i n t he co m pl ai nt–t he di st ric t co urt i s n ot ob li ga te d t o t ak e th e al le ga ti on s i n t he co m pl ai ntas t ru e. Ca rmi ch ae l , 57 2 F .3dat 12 79 . Ins te ad , th e “ co urt m ay co ns id er ex tri ns ic ev id en ce s uc h a s d ep os it io n te st im on y an d a ffi da vi ts .” It m ay

in de pe nd en tl y

weig h t he fact s an d i s n ot co ns tra in edto vi ew th em in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on -m ov an t. Id
. App lying th is st an da rd , th e d is tri ctco urt wei gh edth e fac ts an d d et erm in edth atth e re s was asu nk enSp an is h war sh ip ov er wh ic h i t l ack edjuri sd ic ti on . As we
16ex pl ai n i n P artIII. C. 1 , we con cl ud e th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t cl earl y err i n i ts factua l d et erm in at io ns . Odysse y arg ue s t he di st ric t co urt s ho ul d n otha ve in de pe nd en tl y weig he d th e fac ts un de r th e Ru le 12 (b )(1 ) st an dard , bu t i ns te adsh ou ldha ve ev al ua te d t he fact s u nd er the st an da rdap pl ie d t o am ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t u nd er Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 5 6. Un de r th is st an da rd , Ody ss ey ass ert s, t he co urt s ho ul d h av e v ie wedth e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Odysse y an d drawn all jus ti fiabl e in fere nc es in it s fa vo r. Odysse y arg ue s t he Ru le 56 st an da rdis ne ces sa ry be cau se a m ot io n t o d is m is s i m

pl ic at es th e m eri ts of t he un de rlyin g c la im in th e cas e. Thi s C ou rt h as ex pl ai ne d “ [w]henth e juri sd ic ti on al ba si s o f a cl ai m is in te rtwi ne d wi th th e m eri ts [of th e cl ai m ], th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d app ly a Rul e 5 6 su m m ary jud gm en t s ta nd ardwhen rul in g o n am ot io n t o d is m is s wh ic h a ss ert s a factua l at ta ckon subjec t m atte r juri sd ic ti on .” Dun ba r , 91 9 F .2dat 1 53 0.

“ [J ]uris di ct io n b eco m es in te rtwi ne d wi th th e m eri ts of acau se of a ct io n wh ena st atut e p ro vi de s t he ba si s fo r bo th th e subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on of t he fed eral
co urt an d t he pl ai nt iff’s subs tant iv e cl ai m for rel ie f.” Mor ris v. Amwa

y Co rp . , 32 3 F.3 d 9 20 , 92 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on s o m it te d)
.

17Inth is cas e, juri sd ic ti on is no t i nt ert win edwith t he m eri ts of t he cau se of

act io n. Al th ou gh th e FSIA g ov ern s t he subjec t m atte r juri sd ic ti on of the fed eral
co urts to he ar thi s ca se , Ody ss ey ha s t wo s ub st an ti ve cla im s fo r rel ie f: a n in rem sa lv ag e cl ai m , whi ch is go ve rn edby salv ag e la w; an d a n a lt ern at e cl ai m of po ss es so ry

rig ht s an d o wne rs hi p u nd er the law o f fi nd s. Si nc e th e FSIA p ro vi de s on ly sub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on , andis no t t he ba si s fo r Odysse y ’s subs ta nt iv e cl ai m s, t he same sta tu te do es no t p ro vi de th e b as is for bo th th e subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on of t he co urt an d t he pl ai nt iff’s subs ta nt iv e cl ai m s fo r rel ie f su ch th at juri sd ic ti on is in te rtwi ne d wi th th e m eri ts of the cla im . Alth ou gh Odysse y co nt en ds th e m ot io n t o d is m is s i m pl ic at es th e m eri ts of t he un de rlyin g c la im , th at a la ckof s ub

ject m atte r juri sd ic ti on ba rs a pa rty’ s cl ai m do es no t m ean th e juri sd ic ti on al qu es ti on is it se lf r el at edto th e cau se of a ct io n. Se e Mor an , 27 F.3d at17 2- 73 . Accor di ng ly, th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y ap pl ie d t he Ru le 12 (b )(1 ) st an da rdforfactua l ch al le ng es to juri sd ic ti on to Sp ai n’s m ot io n fo r di sm is sa l. B. Sh ou ld

th e dis tr ic t co ur t h av e h eld a n e vi de nt ia ryhe ar in g w he n r ul in g o n Sp ai n’ s Ru le 12 (b

)(1 ) mot io n? Odysse y co nt en ds th e d is tri ctco urt erredby fail in g t o c on du ctan ev id en ti ary he ari ng when de ci di ng th e Ru le 12 (b )(1 ) m ot io n. Ody ss ey cla im s i t sh ou ldha ve be engi ve n a n o pp ortu ni ty to o ral ly cros s ex am in e Sp ai n’s ex pe rts . 18“ Whe n apa rty chal le ng es subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on , th e co urt i s g iv enth e

au th or it y to res ol ve factua l d is pu te s, al on g wi th th e d is cret io n t o d ev is e a m etho d fo r m ak in g ade te rm in at io n wi th reg ardto th e juri sd ic ti on al is su e.” Id . at 1 72 ; se e al so La nd v. Dol la r , 33 0 U.S. 7 31 , 73 5, 6 7 S . Ct. 1 00 9, 1 01 1 n . 4 (1 94 7) (“ As th ere i s n o s ta tu to ry

di rect io n fo r pr oc edur e upo n a n i ss ue of ju ris di ct io n, t he m od e of it s d et erm in at io n i s l eftto th e tr ia l co urt.”( qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n om it te d) ). Whe n re so lv in g fa ctua l d is pu te s u nd erl y in g aRu le 12 (b )(1 ) m ot io n, a co urt “ ‘m ay ’ co ns id er o ral ev id en ce al on g wi th writ te n, b utanev id en ti ary he ari ng is no t re qu ire d.” Mor an , 27 F.3d at17 3. Bo th th e m ag is tra te jud ge an d t he di st ric t co urt h adbe fo re the m whatth e di st ric t co urt re ferr edto as “ anen cy cl op ed ic tre atm en t o f th e is su es att en da ntto th is co nt ro ve rs y .” Sp ai n’s m ot io n t o d is m is s, Ody ss ey ’s res po ns e an d S pa in ’s rep ly w ere a cco m

pa ni edby a com

bi ne d t ot al of 1 25 att ach m en ts , in cl ud in g affi da vi ts of m

ul ti pl e h is to ria ns , cou nt er-a ffi da vi ts , cop ie s o f or ig in al Sp an is h do cu m en ts fro m

th e Nin et een th Cen tu ry

with t ran sl at io ns , ph ot og rap hs fro m th e sh ip wrecksi te , andph ot og rap hs of t he art ifa ct s re co ve red . Furthe r, Odysse y in tro du cedev enm or e ex hi bi ts with i ts ob jecti on s t o t he m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort, in cl ud in g c op ie s o f or ig in al hi st or ic al do cum en ts , tra ns la te d d oc um en ts , art ic le s,

19an d e xc erp ts fro m hi st or ie s. Each pa rty hada fu ll op po rtu ni ty to p res en t ev id en ce, in cl ud in g t he ab il it y

to pre se ntco un te r-af

fid av it s. Th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y

ev al ua ti ng Sp ai n’s Ru le 12 (b )(1 ) m ot io n b as edon th e ex te ns iv e reco rdbe fo re i t. 4 C. Did

th e dis tr ic t co ur t h av e su bj ect mat te r j ur is di ct io n o ver

th e re s? The Co ns ti tu ti on em

po wers th e fed eral co urts to he ar “ al l Ca se s o f ad m ira lt y an d m ari ti m e Ju ris di ct io n.” U.S. Con st . art . III § 2, cl . 1. “ ‘An in rem su itag ai ns t a v es se l i s . . . di st in ct iv el y anadm ira lt y

pro ceed in g, an d i s h en ce wit hi n t he ex cl us iv e p ro vi nc e o f th e fed eral co urts .’ ” Bd. o f Co mm’rs of

th e Orl ea ns Leve e Dis t. v. M/ V Bell e o f Or le an s , 53 5 F .3d12 99 , 13 14 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ti ng Am. Dred

gi ng Co . v. Mil le r , 51 0 U.S. 4 43 , 44 6- 47 , 11 4 S . Ct. 9 81 , 98 5 (1 99 4) ). Alt ho ug h fe de ral co urts ha ve th e ex cl us iv e p owe r to ad jud ic at e in rem su it s ag ai ns t a v es se l, tha t p owe r is de pe nd en t o n t he co urt’s jur is di ct io n o ve r th e re s , th e p ro pe rty nam edas t he de fen da nt . R.M.S. Ti ta ni c, In c. v. Hav er , 17 1 F .3d94 3,
Ody ssey claims that Chalwest (Holdings) Ltd. v. Ellis , 924 F.2d 1011, 1014 ( 11th Cir. 4 1991), re quires the district cour t to conduct an e videntiary hearing. T he Court in Chalwest held “in a motion to dismi ss for wa nt of jurisdiction decided w ithout an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff must only

prese nt a prima fa cie c ase of jurisdiction to defea

t the motion where it is the defe ndant’s domicile that is at issue.” Id. at 1013. No par ty ’s domicile is at issue here
. 2096 4 (4 thCir . 19 99 ) (ci ti ng Pen no yer v. Nef f , 95 U.S. 71 4, 7 24 (18 77 ), ov erru le d i n pa rt bySh af fe r v. Hei tn er , 43 3 U.S. 1 86 , 97 S. Ct. 2 56 9 (1 97 7) ). “ Onl y if the
co urt h as ex cl us iv e cu st ody an d c on tro l o ve r th e p ro pe rty do es itha ve juri sd ic ti on ov er the pro pe rty so as t o b e ab le to ad jud ic at e ri gh ts in itth atare b in di ng ag ai ns t th e wor ld .” Hav er , 17 1 F .3dat 9 64 . There fo re, wh ena pa rty fil es an in rem co m pl ai nt , th e co urt i ss ue s a wa rran t fo r th e arr es t o f th e re s an d t he re s rem ai ns in th e co urt’s cu st od y

forth e rem ai nd er o f th e p ro ceed in gs . Cr ims on Y ac ht s v. Bet ty Lyn II Mo to r Y

ac ht , 60 3 F .3d86 4, 8 68 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ); se e a ls o Uni te d Sta te s v. $3 8,5 70 U.S. Cu rr en cy , 95 0 F .2d11 08 , 11 13 (5t h C ir. 1 99 3) (“ No in rem su itcan be m ai nt ai ne d wi th ou t a v al idarre stof t he re s by the m ars ha l.”) If the re s at i ss ue is th e p ro pe rty of a fo rei gn st at e, th e fed eral co urts on ly ha ve juri sd ic ti on to arre stth e re s if aut ho riz edby the FSIA. Se e 28 U.S.C § 1 60 9;
se e a ls o Beg

v. Isl ami c Rep ub li c o

f Pa kist an , 35 3 F .3d13 23 , 13 24 (11 thCir
. 20 03 ) (“ Fed eral co urts ha ve juri sd ic ti on to he ar cl ai m s ag ai ns t fo rei gn go ve rn m en ts on ly if au th or iz edby the Fo rei gn So ve rei gn Im m un it ie s Act .”). The refo re, i n o rd er t o d et erm in e if we ha ve juri sd ic ti on in th is in rem act io n, we m us t d et erm in e fi rs t wh ethe r th e re s atis su e is th e p ro pe rty of a fo rei gnst at e, an d

21se co nd , if i t i s, wh ethe r th e fed eral co urts ha ve juri sd ic ti on ov er the re s un de r th e

FSIA. 1. Is th e re s th e sh ip wreckof t he Mer cedes ? Odysse y arg ue s t he re was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o co nc lu de th e re s was th e Mer cedes . After a n e xt en si ve rev ie w of the reco rd , we co nc lu de th e ev id en ce b efo re the di st ric t co urt s up po rts it s fa ctua l d et erm in at io n th atth e res is th e sh ip wreckof t he Mer cedes forth e p ur po se s o f so ve rei gn imm un it y . a. The Mer cedes an d i ts hi st or ic al co nt ex t To d et erm in e whe th er the re s is th e Mer cedes forth e p ur po se s o f so ve rei gn imm un it y , itis ne ces sa ry

to fir stun de rs ta ndth e h is to ry of t he Mer cedes an d t he fact s s urro un di ng it s fi na l m is si on . The fa ct s s urro un di ng th e d em is e o f th e 5 Mer ced es are b es t und ers to odin li gh t o f th e g eo po li ti cal co nt ex t o f ear ly 19t h Cen tu ry Sp ai n. Sp ai n andGreatBri ta in fou gh t as all ie s ag ai ns t re vo lu ti on ary Fran ce i n t he W ar o f Co nv en ti on fro m

17 93 to 17 95 . In17 95 , Spa in si gn edth e Pea ce o f Bas el wit h F ran ce, en di ng th e h os ti li ti es be twee n S pa in an d F ran ce. Whil e th ey were All of the followingfac ts are in the r ecord befor e the district cour t. 5 22te ch ni cal ly at pe ace, Sp ai n s ti ll fear edFren ch ex pa ns io ni sm an d F ran ce’s s tro ng er m il it ary an d qui ck ly ent eredin to th e Treat y of S anIld efo ns o wi th Fran ce o n Aug us t 1 8, 1 79 6. Un de r th e tr eat y , Spa inpl ed ge d s up po rt t o F ran ce an d b ecame al li edwith F ran ce i n i ts war ag ai ns t Gre atBri ta in . In 1 80 0, Sp ai n s ig ne d asec on d Treat y of S anIld efo ns o, re affi rm in g S pa in ’s all ia nc e wit h F ran ce. The sec on d tre aty als o i nc lu de d s ig ni fic an t Sp an is h c on ces si on s t o F ran ce, i nc lu di ng th e ces si onof Lo ui si an a b y

Sp ai n t o F ran ce. In Marc h o f 18 02 , Fran ce an d Gre at Bri ta in si gn edth e Treat y of Am ie ns , whi ch effe ct eda sh ort-l iv edpe ace b etween Fran ce an d Gre atBri ta in , bu t d idno t ab ro ga te Sp ai n’s al li an ce wi th Fran ce. In18 03 , Spa in en te redin to a se cretag reem en t wi th Fran ce wh ere S pa in ag reedto pa y

Fran ce a l arg e m on th ly sum equi va le ntto an d i n l ie u o f it s m il it ary ob li ga ti on to Fran ce u nd er the Treat y of S anIld efo ns o. Sp ai n h op edth is ag reem en t wo ul d a ll ow i t t o m ai nt ai n i ts all ia nc e wit h F ran ce wi th ou t p ro vo ki ng th e Bri ti sh , th ereb y

st av in g o ff a p ot en ti al Fren ch in va si on of S pa in . Howev er, GreatBri ta in in fo rm edSp ai n i t co ns id eredth e fi nanc ia l s up po rt o f Fran ce as gr ou nd s fo r at ta ck in g S pa in
. Inli gh t o f it s ex te ns iv e m on et ary ob li ga ti on s t o F ran ce an d t he ten uo us pe ace wi thGreatBri ta in , Spa in ne ed edto m ars ha l i ts fun ds an d re so ur ces in

23pe ni ns ul ar Sp ai n. Sp ai n t hu s u ti li zedth e p eace fro m th e Treat y

of Am ie ns as a n op po rtu ni ty to co ll ectfun ds fro m it s v ari ou s Vi cero y al ti es . The Sp an is h Gen eral is imo of

seaan d l an d fo rces , Manue l Go do y , ord eredwars hi ps be di sp at ch edto th e p ort o f El Ca ll ao in Lim a, part o f th e Sp an is h Vi cero y al ty of Peru , to co ll ectan d b rin g b ackto pe ni ns ul ar Sp ai n s pe ci e an d o th er p reci ou s 6 carg o. Fo ll owi ng th e Gen er al is imo ’s ord ers , th e Sp an is h M in is te r of th e Nav y di sp at ch edtwo fri ga te s o f war t o Li m a, th e Mer cedes an d t he Clar a . The Mer cedes was b ui ltby Span is h Nav y en gi ne ers in 17 88 at the Sp an is h Nav y sh ip y ardin Hava na , Cub a. It h ada di st in gu is he d n av al care er an d t oo k p art in m ul ti pl e m il it ary m is si on s, i nc lu di ng fig ht in g a ga in stth e Bri ti sh in bo th th e Bat tl e o f th e Cap e o f Sai ntVin cen t i n 1 79 7 a ndin th e d efen se of El Ferro l, Sp ai n in 18 00 . It al so co nduc te d m ul ti pl e m is si on s t ran sp orti ng va lu ab le Sp an is h e ffec ts , in cl ud in g t ran sp orti ng 50 0,0 00 pe so s f ue rt es of th e Kin g andot he r va lu ab le s o f Sp an is h c it iz en s fr om

th e Sp an is h Vi cero y al ti es of Ne w Gren ad a an d New Sp ai n t o pe ni ns ul ar Sp ai n i n 1 79 8.

“Specie ” is define d as “[c]oin of the prec ious metals, of a c erta in weight and finene ss, 6 and bea ringthe stamp of the g overnme nt, denoting its value as cur renc y . Metallic money ; e.g. g old or silver coins.” B lack’ s L aw Dic tionary 1398 (6th ed. 1990). 24The Mer cedes an d the Clar a setsai l fo r Lim a o n F eb ru ary 27 , 18 03 , fro m th e Sp an is h n av al ba se in El Ferro l. Aft er s to pp in g fo r rep ai rs at t he Sp an is h n av al ba se in Mo nt ev id eo , inpre se ntda y Urug uay , th e Mer cedes reac he d Li m a o n Aug us t 7 , 18 03 . InLim a, th e Mer cedes to okon bo ardanex te ns iv e am ou ntof s pe ci e an d ot he r car go , in cl ud in g c op pe r an d t in in go ts of t he Ro y al Treas ury , pro du ct s o f th e Ro y al Rev en ue of M ai ls , pro ceed s o f pa tri ot ic lo an s, ec cl es ia st ic fun ds , m il it ary pa yro ll an d t ree h us ks . It al so to okab oa rdsp eci e o f Sp an is h c it iz en s. Acco rd in g to Sp an is h n av al hi st or ia ns , itwas an a ccep te d p ract ic e atth is ti m e fo r a co un try to pr ov id e m il it ary tra ns po rt f orpri va te pro pe rty whenth e tr an sp ort wo ul d p as s th ro ug h a reas pa tro ll edby hos ti le na ti on s’ warsh ip s. In all , th e Mer cedes was lo ad edwith app ro xi m at el y 90 0,0 00 si lv er p es os , 5,8 09 go ldpe so s, an d a lm os t 20 00 co pp er an d t in in go ts . The Mer cedes was a ls o l oa de d wi th two ob so le te br on ze cann on s, co m

m on ly call edcu lv eri ns . The cu lv eri ns were b ei ng returne d t o Sp ai n fo r reu se of t he bro nz e fo r ot he r m il it ary pu rp os es . Sh ortl y aft er the Mer cedes arri ve d i n Li m a, th e Vic ero y of P eruwas in fo rm edth e Treat y

of Am ie ns ha d b een ab ro ga te d a ndFran ce an d Gre atBri ta in
were o nc e ag ai n a t war . In l ig htof t he res um edho st il it ie s b etween Fran ce an d

25GreatBri ta in , th e Mer cedes ’ de pa rtu re fro m Lim a was de la y ed . The Mer cedes ul ti m at el y

lef t Li m a o n M arch 31 , 18 04 , alo ng with t he Clar a an d a no th er Sp an is h Nav y fri ga te , th e Asu nc io n . The thr ee s hi ps st op pe d i n M on te vi de o o n J un e 5 , 18 04 . There , th e Clar a an d t he Mer cedes were p la cedun de r th e co m m an d o f Ro y al Navy Comm an de r Gen eral Jo se de Bu st am en te y Guerra an d jo in eda squa dr on of t wo o th er Sp an is h Nav y fri ga te s, the Med

ea an d t he Fama . The squa dr on th erea fte r co ns is te d o f fo urfri ga te s: th e Mer cedes , th e Clar a , th e Med ea , an d t he Fama . Acco rd in g t o t he off

ic ia l re gi st ry

of t he Mer cedes , whenitarri ve d a t Mo nt ev id eo it s cr ew of

33 7 i nc lu de d e ig htSp an is h n av al off ic ers , 63 m ari ne s, 6 9 art il le rym enan d g un ne rs , 51 sai lo rs , 10 3 s ai lo rs -in -tr ai ni ng , andva rio us ot he r m en pe rfo rm in g d iff

eren t jo bs ab oa rdth e sh ip . It was als o a rm edacco rd in g t o S pa ni sh Nav y reg ul at io ns forwar fri ga te s an d c arri ed12 -p ou nd er an d 6 -p ou nd er ca nn on s, as well as 2 4- po un de r an d 3 -p ou nd er ob us es or pe dr er os . 7 The da y be fo re the squa dr on lef

t M on te vi de o, t he sec on d i n c omm an d o f th e squa dr on fel l i ll an d h adto be rep la ced . Cap ta in Dieg o d e Alv ear, wh o was ab oa rd

The e x act number

of ca nnons the Merc edes car

ried is disputed. Spain and one of 7 Ody ssey ’s experts claims the Mer cede s car ried 50 c annons, while a

nother one of Ody ssey ’s experts claims it carr ied only 33-40 ca nnons. 26th e Mer cedes an d was returni ng to Sp ai n wi thhi s fa m il y , was m ov edfro m th e Mer ced es to th e Med

ea to rep la ce t he sec on d i n c omm an d. Capt ai n Al ve ar’s fam il y , in cl ud in g h is wife , fou r daug ht ers , th ree s on s, an d o ne ne ph ew, st ay ed ab oa rdth e Mer cedes . The squa dr on setsai l fr om Mo nt ev id eo forCad iz on Aug us t 9 , 18 04 . On t he
m orni ng of Oc to be r 5, 1 80 4, wh enth e Sp an is h s qu adro n was on ly one da y ’s sai l fro m Cad iz , itwas i nt erce pt edby a Brit is h s qu adro n. Fo ur Ro y al Bri ti sh Navy sh ip s, u nd er the co m

m an d o f Co m

m od or e Grah am

Mo or e, ha d b een sen t b y th e Bri ti sh Navy Adm ira lt y

to in te rcep t Sp an is h war sh ip s t ran sp orti ng tre as ur e b ackto Sp ai n. The Sp an is h fr ig at es , hav in g s ig ht edth e Bri ti sh fri ga te s h ead edto ward s th em , ass um eda co m

ba t fo rm at io n. A Bri ti sh off ic er was sen t ab oardth e Med ea an d i nf orm edth e Sp an is h t ha t t he Bri ti sh Kin g h adord eredth e Bri ti sh Navy to de ta in th e Sp an is h s qu adro n a ndtak e itto Eng la nd . The Sp an is h re fu se d the Bri ti sh
or de r, an d wh atwas t o b eco m e kno wn as th e Bat tl e o f Cap e Sai ntMary so on co m m en ced
. Onl y a few m in ut es aft er the ba tt le be ga n, the Mer cedes ex pl od ed . Cap ta in Alv ear, wh os e fam il y

was abo ardth e Mer ced

es , lat er wro te “ The Mer cedes jum pe d th ro ug h t he airm ak in g aho rri bl e rac ke t, co ve rin g u s [o n the Med ea ] wit h ath ic k
27rai n o f de br is an d s m ok e.” Exc ep t fo r fi fty sai lo rs , eve ry on e ab oa rdth e Mer cedes

was ki ll ed , in cl ud in g C ap ta in Alv ear’s en ti re fam il y . The remaini ng th ree S pa ni sh fri ga te s s urren de redan d wer e ta ke n b y th e Bri ti sh squa dr on to Eng la nd . Part ly as a
co ns eque nc e o f th e Bat tl e o f Cap e Sai ntMary, Spai n d ecl aredwar ag ai ns t Gre at Bri ta in an d e nt eredin to th e Nap ol eo ni c Wars as anall y of F ran ce. b. The re s is th e Mer cedes Inth is hi st or ic al co nt ex t, the en ti ret y of the reco rdev id en ce s up po rts th e di st ric t co urt’s co nc lu si on th atth e re s is th e Mer ced es . The re s was fou ndwithi n th e zo ne Sp ai n h adpl ot te d a s t he li ke li es t ar ea o f th e Mer cedes ’ de m is e, an d n o ot he r na va l v es se ls m at ch in g t he Mer cedes ’ type s an k wi th inth atzo ne du rin g t he
sa m e ti m e p eri od . The s it e, es se nt ia ll y a sc at te redde br is fie ld , is co ns is te ntwith a
ve ss el th atex pl od edat t he su rfac e. Mo reo ve r, th e co m po si ti on of t he ex am in ed
sa m pl in g o f co in s fo un d o n t he re s m at ch es th atof t he 90 0,0 00 m os tl y si lv er co in s ab oa rdth e Mer cedes : al m os t al l t he co in s ar e si lv er; th ey were al l m in te d i n t he lat e 18 th an d e arl y

19 th Cen tu rie s an d n on e were m in te d l at er tha n 1 80 4; an d t he y were al m os t ex cl us iv el y

m in te d i n Li m a an d B ol iv ia . The 1 7 c an no ns fou ndat t he si te , co ns is ti ng of 6 - an d 1 2- po un de r can no ns , m at ch th e type t he Mer cedes wou ldha ve carr ie d. Th e si te co nt ai ns at l eas t o ne bro nz e cu lv eri n, m at ch in g t he di st in ct iv e
28can no ns th e Mer cedes was c arrying to be recycled . The s it e al so in cl ud es lar ge

qu an ti ti es of c op pe r an d t inin go ts , m at ch in g the lar ge qu an ti ty carrie d b y th e Mer ced es , andco nt ai ns co pp er p la te s l ik e th os e u se d t o s he ath the hu ll of t he Mer ced es . Des pi te th is ev id en ce, Ody ss ey co nt en ds th e art ifa ct s re co ve reddo no t m at ch th e car go of t he Mer cedes . It p oi nt s o utth atth e Mer cedes was c arrying 90 0,0 00 co in s an d 3 3- 50 can no ns , wher eas Odysse y ha s o nl y reco ve red59 5,0 00 co in s an d
se ve nt een can no ns . W e fi ndth is arg um en t u nc on vi nc in g. Th e fai lu re t o fu ll y reco ve r al l arti fact s ca rri edby the Mer cedes is un de rs ta nd ab le co ns id eri ng th e Mer ced es ex pl od edat t he su rfac e, sa nk1,1 00 m et ers , sca tt eredov er a l arg e are a, an d h as be ensi tt in g o n t he oc ean flo orform or e th an20 0 years. Odysse y als o a rg ue s t he re s can no t b e th e Mer cedes be cau se Odysse y di d n ot fin d a n i nt actve ss el
. Alt ho ug h i t i s u nd is pu te d t he sh ip wrecksi te do es no t co nt ai n an“ in ta ct ” v es se l, thi s fa ctis no t d et erm in at iv e. As o ne of Od y ss ey ’s own ex pe rts ackno wled ge d, t he si te is co ns is te ntwith ave ss el th atbro ke up at t he su rfac e an d de sc en de d t hr ou gh th e wat er. The re i s ev id en ce o f anactua l v es se l atth e si te , in cl ud in g c op pe r pl at es li ke th os e u se d t o s he ath ahu ll . The s it e an d t hu s the re s is a sh ip wreck , eve n t ho ug h n o i nt actve ss el was fo un d.
29Fu rth erm or e, Odysse y ackno wled ge d wh enitfou ndth e sh ip wreckth atitwas th e rem ai ns of ave ss el . Ody ss ey fil edbo th it s o rig in al co m pl ai ntag ai ns t an d a
m ot io n s eek in g t he arre stof “ The Uni de nt ifi edSh ip wreck edVess el , it s ap pa rel , ta ck le , app urte na nc es an d c arg o.” The d is tri ctco urt, atOdysse y ’s reque st , is su eda warra ntforth e arr es t o f “ The Uni de nt ifi edSh ip wreck edVess el , it s ap pa rel , tac kl e, ap pu rte na nc es an d c arg o.” There fo re, the ev id en ce i n t he reco rdful ly sup po rts th e fin di ng of t he di st ric t co urt t ha t t he re s is th e Mer cedes forth e p ur po se s o f
so ve rei gn imm

un it y . 8 2. Doe s t he FSIA ap pl y to th e Mer cedes ? As we p rev io us ly not ed , inord er fo r th e fed eral co urts to ha ve juri sd ic ti on ov er thi s in rem act io n, we m us t fi rs t d et erm in e whe th er the re s at i ss ue is th e

The fa ct that the Merc edes has bee n sitti ngon the oce an floor f or over 200 year s does not 8 neg ate Spain’s pr operty

interest in the shipwre ck. Unde r the 1902 Tr eaty of F riendship and Gene ral Relations betwe en the United States of Americ a and Spain, shipwre cked “ Spanish vessels, like those belong ing to the United States, may only be aba ndoned by

express acts.” Sea Hunt, Inc. v . The Unidentified Shipwrecke d Vessel or Ve ssels , 221 F.3d 634, 638, 642 ( 4th Cir. 2000); see also Sunken Milit ary Craft Ac t, Pub. L . No. 108-375, § 1406, 118 Stat. 1811, 2097 (2004) ( “The law of f

inds shall not apply

to . . . any

fore ign sunke n milit ary

cra ft locate d in United States wate rs,” a

nd “[n] o salvag e rights or awa rds shall be grante d with respec t to . . . any fore ign sunke n milit ary

cra ft locate d in United States water s without the express pe rmission of the re levant for eign state.”) ; Protection of Sunken Warships, Milit ary Aircr aft a

nd Other Sunken Gover nment Property , 69 Fe d. Reg . 5647-01, 5648 (F eb. 5, 2004) ( President Clinton’s J anuar y 19, 2001, statement that the United States “ rec og nizes that ti tle to a United States or f oreign sunken State cr aft, whe reve r loca ted, is not ex tinguished by passag e of time, re g ardle ss of when such sunken State c raf

t was lost at sea” ). The shipwr eck of the Merc edes is thus unquestionably the prope rty

of Spain. 30pr op erty

of afor ei gn st at e, an d s eco nd , if i t i s, wh ethe r th e fed eral co urts ha ve juri sd ic ti on ov er i t u nd er the FSIA. The di st ric t co urt d idno t err in de te rm in in g t he
re s is th e Mer cedes . It i s u nc on te st edth e Mer cedes is th e p ro pe rty of Sp ai n. We
m us t n ow d et erm in e if

th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y de ci de d t ha t FS IA imm

un it y ap pl ie s t o t he arre stof t he Mer cedes .

a. Sect io n 1 60 9 p ro vi de s t he Mer cedes with p res um pt iv e imm un it y fro m arres t Sect io n 1 60 9 o f th e FSIA s ta te s: “ Subjec t t o e xi st in g i nt ern at io na l ag reem en ts to whi ch th e Uni te d S ta te s i s a p art y at t he ti m e o f en act m en t o f th is Act t he pro pe rty in t he Uni te d S ta te s o f a fo rei gnst at e sh al l b e imm un e fro m at ta ch m en t[,] arres t[,] andex ecu ti on ex cep t as pro vi de d i n s ect io ns 16 10 an d 1 61 1 of th is ch ap te r.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 16 09 . The Mer cedes is Sp ai n’s s ov erei gn pro pe rty th atis withi n t he Uni te d S ta te s. Whil e th e Mer cedes it se lf i s n otwithi n the Uni te d St at es , th atalo ne do es no t d efea t t he co urt’s ab il it y to ob ta in juri sd ic ti on ov er i t. A co urt m ay ha ve eit he r actua l o r co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n o ve r th e re s . Se e Th e Bri g Ann , 13 U.S. 28 9, 2 91 (18 15 ). A cou rt c anex erci se co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n o ve r a sh ip wreckwhen pa rt o f th e sh ip wreckis pre se nt edto th e d is tri ctco urt. Se e , e.g . , Ca li fo rn ia v. Deep Se a Res ea rc h, In c. , 52 3 U.S. 4 91 , 49 4, 1 18 S. Ct. 1 46 4, 1 46 7 (1 99 8) . A sal vo r is th us ab le to bri ng a sh ip wreckfou ndin in te rn at io na l wat ers 31co ns tru ct iv el y withi n aco urt’s t erri to ria l ju ris di ct io n b y havi ng a po rti on of the sh ip wreckwithi n t he juri sd ic ti on . R.M.S. Ti ta ni c, In c. v. Hav er , 17 1 F .3d94 3, 96 7- 69 (4t h C ir. 1 99 9) (co nc lu di ng a sh ip wreckfou ndin in te rn at io na l wat ers can

“ co ns tru ct iv el y ” b e co ns id eredwithi n the juri sd ic ti on of t he di st ric t co urt, al th ou gh th e d is tri ctco urt’s s ov erei gn ty ove r th e wreckis a “ ‘sha redso ve rei gn ty,’ sh ared wit h o th er n at io ns en fo rci ng th e sa m e [l aw of all na ti on s]”). Odysse y

ha s d ep os it ed pa rts of the Mer ced

es with t he di st ric t co urt, co ns tru ct iv el y bri ng in g t he sh ip wreck wit hi n t he co urt’s t erri to ria l ju ris di ct io n. Be cau se th is is an in rem act io n b as edon th e arr es t o f so ve rei gn pro pe rty, § 16 09 pro vi de s t he Mer ced es with p res um

pt iv e imm un it y fro m arre st . b. The Mer cedes do es no t fa ll withi n a ny of th e FSIA e xc ep ti on s to in rem imm

un it y Bec au se § 1 60 9 p ro vi de s the Mer cedes with p res um pt iv e imm

un it y fro m arre ston th es e fac ts , th e o nl y way a fed eral co urt ca n o bt ai n ju ris di ct io n i s i f an
ex cep ti on to § 1 60 9 app li es . Ody ss ey ha s t he bu rd enof o ve rco m in g the pr es um pt io n t ha t t he Mer cedes is imm un e fro m arre st . Se e S

&Davis In t’l

, Inc . v. Th e Rep ub li c o

f Y emen , 21 8 F .3d12 92 , 13 00 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (“ To es tabl is h
subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on un de r th e FSIA, a p la in ti ff m us t o ve rco m e th e pr es um pt io n t ha t t he for ei gn st at e is imm un e fro m su itin th e Uni te d S ta te s’ cou rts . 32. . . In or de r to ov erco m e th e p res um pt io n o f imm

un it y , a pl ai nt iff

m us t p ro ve th at th e co nduc t wh ic h fo rm s t he ba si s o f it s co m pl ai ntfal ls withi n o ne of the st atut or il y de fin edex cep ti on s.”) (ci ti ng Rep ub li c o f Ar ge nt in a v . W

el to ver , Inc
. , 50 4 U.S. 6 07 , 61 0- 11 , 11 2 S . Ct. 2 16 0 (1 99 2) ). If Odyss ey off ers ev id en ce o ne of t he FSIA ex cep ti on s t o i m

m un ity ap pl ie s, t he bu rd ensh ift s t o S pa in to sh ow, b y a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce, tha t t he ex cep ti on do es no t ap pl y . Id
. Alt ho ug h § § 1 61 0 a nd16 11 are t he on ly statut ory ex cep ti on s t o aso ve rei gn pr op erty ’s imm

un it y fro m arre st , se e § 1 60 9, Ody ss ey fai ls to in vo ke eithe r of

th es e ex cep ti on s. Be cau se Odysse y ha s fa il edto sat is fy

it s b ur de n b y

pro vi ng th ateit he r § 1 61 0 o r § 1 61 1 app li es , we wou ldno rm al ly endth e an al y si s atth is po in t. Odysse y , ho wev er, arg ue s the Mer cedes was e ng ag edinco m m erci al act iv it y

an d i s ex em ptfro m an y FSIA p ro te ct io n b y

vi rtu e o f th e FSIA’s i nc or po rat io n o f ex is ti ng in te rn at io na l ag reem en ts th atex em ptco m m erci al ve ss el s fr om

so ve rei gn imm

un it y . Se e U.S.C. § 1 60 9 (e xp la in in g t ha t i m m un ity fro m arre stis “ [s ]ubjec t t o e xi st in g in te rn at io na l ag reem en ts whi ch th e Uni te d S ta te s i s a p art y at t he ti m e o f
en act m en t.”) . Spe ci fic al ly, Odysse y po in ts to lan gu ag e in th e 1 95 8 Gen ev a Co nv en ti on on th e Hig h S eas st at in g, “ Sh ip s o wne d o r op erat edby a sta te an d u se d
on ly on g ov ern m en t n on -co m m erci al servi ce s ha ll , on th e h ig h s eas , hav e co m pl et e

33imm

un it y fro m th e juri sd ic ti on of a ny Stat e o th er tha n t he fla g S ta te .” Art. 9 , en te re d i nt o f

or ce Sep t. 3 0, 1 96 2, 1 3 U.S.T. 23 12 , 45 0 U.N.T.S. 11 . On i ts face , 9 th is lan gu ag e cre at es anaffi rm at iv e g ran t o f imm un it y to ve ss el s en ga ge d i n “ no nco m m erci al servi ce.” Itdo es no t, as Odysse y co nt en ds , app ear t o c reat e a co m m erci al act iv it y

ex cep ti on to § 1 60 9's imm un ity to arre st . Howev er, ev enif i t di d, t hi s ar gu m en t fa il s b ecau se th e Mer ced es was n oten ga ge d i n c omm erci al act iv ity . 1 0 The FSIA d efi ne s a “ co m m erci al act iv it y ” as : “ [e]ithe r a reg ul ar co ur se of
co m m erci al co nduc t o r a p art ic ul ar co m m erci al tra ns act io n o r act . The co m m erci al ch arac te r of

anact iv it y

sh al l b e d et erm in edby referen ce t o t he na tu re o f th e co ur se of co nduc t o r pa rti cu lar tr an sa ct io n o r act , rathe r th anby referen ce t o i ts pu rp os e.” 28 U.S.C. § 1 60 3( d)
. The Supr em e Co urt ac kn owl ed ge d i n W el to ver th atth is 1 1
Ody ssey also cites to the 1926 B russels Convention for the Unification of Cer tain Rules 9 Relatingto the Immunity of State-Owned Ve ssels, entere d into force J an. 8, 1937, 176, L .N.T.S. 199. Howeve r, as the United States has not ratified this Convention and wa s not a party to it at the time the FSIA was e nacte d, it would not apply under the terms of the F SIA. See 6B B enedic t on Admiralty

§ 8-41 (F rank L . Wis wall, J r. ed., 7th e d. 2011). Ody ssey did not raise a c ommercia l activity arg ument under § 1610, which provides f or 1 0 exceptions from attac hment for pr operty “used f or a c ommercia l activity

in the United States,” and would thus not apply
. See 28 U.S.C. § 1610. Instead, Ody ssey improperly

invoked § 1605(b)’ s commerc ial activity exception, which as we explain in P art I I I . C. 2. c., also does not apply
. The 1958 Ge neva Conve ntion on the High Sea s does not define “commer cial.”

1 1 34de fin it io n “ le av es th e cri ti cal term ‘ co m m erci al ’ la rg el y

un de fin ed .” 50 4 U.S. at 61 2, 1 12 S. Ct. at21 65 . The Supr em e Co urt cl ari fie d t ha t an act iv ity is co m m erci al
un de r th e FSIA: “ whe n afor ei gngo ve rn m en t ac ts , no t as reg ul at orof am ark et , bu t in th e m an ne r of

a pr iv at e p la y er wi th in it .” Id
. at 6 14 , 11 2 S . Ct. at21 66 . It el ab or at ed : [B]ecau se th e Actpro vi de s t ha t t he co m m erci al ch arac te r of

anactis to be de te rm in edby referen ce t o i ts ‘ na tu re’ rath er tha n i ts ‘ pu rp os e,’ 28 U.S.C. § 1 60 3( d) , th e que st io n i s n otwhet he r th e fo rei gn go ve rn m en t i s ac ti ng with apro fitm ot iv e o r in st eadwith t he aim of fu lfi ll in g u ni qu el y

so ve rei gn ob

jecti ve s. Ra th er, the is su e is whethe r th e p art ic ul ar ac ti on s t ha t t he for ei gn st at e p erfo rm s (wh at ev er the m ot iv e b eh in d t he m) are th e ty pe of a ct io ns by whi ch a pr iv at e p art y en ga ge s i n ‘tra de an d t raff ic or c omm erce ,’ Bla ck’s La w Dic ti on ar y 27 0 (6 th ed . 19 90 ). Id
. In Gue va ra v. Peru , th is Co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t “ [w]e read W el to ver to m ean th at ‘[a] for ei gn st at e is co m

m erci al ly eng ag edwhenitact s l ik e an ord in ary pr iv at e pe rs on , no t l ik e a s ov erei gn , inth e m ark et .’ ” 46 8 F .3d12 89 , 12 98 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (quo ti ng Hon d. Ai rc ra

ft Registry, Ltd. v. Gov’ t o

f Ho nd
. , 12 9 F .3d54 3, 5 48 (11 th Ci r. 19 97 )). Odysse y po in ts to sev eral fact s s ug ge st in g the Mer cedes was s erv in g i n a co m m erci al cap aci ty. Sp eci fic al ly, Odysse y cla im s t he Mer cedes was c arrying go od s an d s pe ci e fo r frei gh t, 7 5% o f th e car go m eas ur edby val ue was p riv at el y 35own ed , pri va te m erch an ts were ch arg eda 1% fr ei gh t ra te to sh ip th ei r go od s ab oa rd

th e Mer cedes , andSp ai n was no t atwar whe n t he Mer cedes su nk . In ad di ti on , Odysse y arg ue s t he Mer cedes was s erv in g a s a c omm erci al tra ns po rt v es se l fo r th e Sp an is h Co rr eo s Ma ri ti mos (Ma rit im e Ma il Serv ic e). Afte r rev ie win g t he reco rdev id en ce, we co nc lu de th e Mer cedes was n ot

“ act [in g] li ke anord in ary pr iv at e p ers on ” in th e m ark etpl ace. Se e id
. At th e ti m e it
sa nk , th e Mer cedes was aSp an is h Nav y ve ss el . Accor di ng to th e 1 80 4 o ffi ci al reg is try of s hi ps of t he Ro y al Sp an is h Nav y , th e Mer cedes was a ss ig ne d t o t he Sp an is h Nav y

fle etba se d a t El Ferro l as on e o f ni ne fri ga te cla ss sh ip s. Itwas un de r th e co m

m an d o f a Sp an is h Nav y

cap ta in bo th when itlef

t El Ferro l an d wh en itwas s un k. It d el ay edit s d ep artur e fro m Lim a to co m

pl y with S pa ni sh Navy
or de rs to pre pa re fo r war wit h t he Bri ti sh . The cre w was m ad e up o f Sp an is h Nav y of fic ers , sai lo rs an d m ari ne s, i ts arm am en t was th e st an da rdarm am en t o f Sp an is h
wars hi ps , andCap ta in Alv ear’s fa m il y an d s erv an ts were t rav el in g wi th off ic ia l
au th or iz at io n. It wa s al so carry in g asubs ta nt ia l am ou ntof S pa ni sh Gov ern m en t sp eci e an d c arg o, i nc lu di ng m on ey at t he Mi ni st er o f th e Treas ury ’s di sp os al , war do na ti on s, an d c op pe r an d t in in go ts .

36Alt ho ug h t he Mer cedes di d t ran sp ort p riv at e car go of S pa ni sh cit iz en s fo r a

ch arg e, th e tr an sp ort was of aso ve rei gn na tu re. Acco rd in g t o S pa ni sh na va l hi st or ia ns , pro vi di ng pro te ct io n a ndsaf e p as sa ge to pro pe rty of Sp an is h c it iz en s was a m il it ary func ti on of t he Sp an is h Nav y , esp eci al ly in t im es of wa r or th reat en edwar. Thi s fu nc ti on was p art ic ul arl y im po rta ntdu rin g t he lat e 1 8t h a nd earl y 19 th Cen tu rie s, wh ensh ip s t rav el in g b etween Sp ai n a ndit s Am eri can Vice ro y al ti es ha d t o p as s t hr ou gh area s p atro ll edby hos ti le na ti on s’ warsh ip s. The refo re, the Mer cedes was “ act [in g] . . . li ke a so ve rei gn ” b y tra ns po rti ng sp eci e du rin g ati m e o f th reat en edwar. Gue va ra , 46 8 F .3dat 1 29 8. 1 2 Insupp ort o f it s p os it io n t ha t t he Mer cedes was e ng ag edinco m m erci al act iv ity , Ody ss ey

als o c on te nd s t he Mer cedes was apa rt o f th e Co rr eo s Ma ri ti mos , anoff ic ia l en ti ty of th e Sp an is h g ov ern m en t d ed ic at edto hand li ng an d t ran sp orti ng m ai l. The Co rr eo s Ma ri ti mos ge ne ral ly con si st edof s m al l, fa stan d l ig ht ly arm ed
ve ss el s t ha t s ai le d t o S pa in ’s ov ers eas Vice ro y al ti es fro m th ei r ho m e b as e in La Co ru na , Spa in . Spa in pre se nt edam pl e ev id en ce t he Mer cedes was n otpa rt o f th e Co rr eo s Ma ri ti mos , in cl ud in g: hi st or ic al reco rd s l is ti ng th e Mer cedes as p artof t he Ody ssey argues the Merc edes cannot be a wa rship beca

use Spain was not at wa

r with 1 2 the B ritish when it was sunk. Ody ssey has fa iled to point to any law supportingthis argument. Fur ther, this argument would neg ate the w arship status of many sunken military

vessels, including the U.S.S. Arizona at Pear l Harbor . A country need not be at war

for a sunken navy vessel to be a

war ship, as countries ha

ve navie s both during times of w ar a nd times of peac e. 37Sp an is h Nav y an d awars hi p; reco rd s l is ti ng ve ss el s t ha t wer e p artof the Co rr eo s Mar it imo s , whi ch do no t i nc lu de th e Mer cedes ; an d re co rd s s ho win g t he Mer cedes ’ or de rs cam e fro m

th e Mi ni st er o f th e Nav y rathe r th anth e Mi ni st er o f St at e, who
co nt ro ll edth e Co rr eo s Ma ri ti mos . The d is tri ctco urt d idno t cl earl y err i n co nc lu di ng th e Mer cedes was a wars hi p andno t p artof t he Co rr eo s Ma ri ti mos . Bec au se Sp ai n was act in g l ik e a s ov erei gn , no t a p riv at e p ers on in th e m ark etpl ace, we c on cl ud e th e Mer cedes was n otco nduc ti ng co m m erci al act iv it y an d i s i m m un e fro m arre stun de r th e FSIA.
c. Sect io n 1 60 5( b) do es no t ap pl y to th e Mer cedes Odysse y als o a tt em

pt s t o c irc umve nt§ 1 60 9 b y arg ui ng th at§ 1 60 5( b) , whi chrefe rs to th e imm

un it y of afor ei gn st at e fro m

cla im s wh ena su itis bro ug ht to en fo rce am ari ti m e li en , pro vi de s t hi s co urt wi th juri sd ic ti on . This in te rp ret at io n is in co ns is te ntwith t he pl ai n l an gu ag e o f th e FSIA. The FSIA es tabl is he s t wo b ro adgrant s o f imm un it y , whi ch ap pl y

to di ffer en t types of c la im s an d a re s ub ject t o d iff

eren t s et s o f ex cep ti on s. Sec ti on 16 09 , whi ch we ha ve ex pl ai ne d app li es to Odysse y ’s in rem cla im s, p ro vi de s t he pr op er ty of a fo rei gnst at e wit h i m

m un it y fro m arre st , att ach m en t, an d e xe cu ti on an d s ta te s t ha t ex cep ti on s ar e p ro vi de d i n § § 1 61 0 a nd16 11 . 28 U.S.C. § 1 60 9. In co nt ras t, 38§ 1 60 4 p ro vi de s i m m un it y to th e fo rei gn st at e it

se lf an d s ta te s t ha t ex cep ti on s ar e pr ov id edin §§ 16 05 to 16 07 . 28 U.S.C. § 1 60 4. Th e st ru ctur e o f th e st atut e an d th e cl ear l an gu ag e o f § 1 60 9 and§ 1 60 4 t hu s p recl ud e rea di ng § 1 60 5( b) to co nt ro l th e in rem arre stin th is cas e. Se e Ma ng at tu v. M/V IBN HAY Y AN , 35 F.3d20 5, 2 09 (5 th Cir . 19 94 ) (s ta ti ng th e p la in lan gu ag e o f § 1 60 9 p recl ud es read in g t he la ng ua ge of § § 1 60 5 a nd16 06 to co nt ro l an is su e o f atta ch m en t). Se ct io n 1 60 5( b) is anex cep ti on on ly to t he ge ne ral imm un it y of t he for ei gn st at e it se lf f ro m cla im s un de r § 1 60 4 a ndth us do es no t ap pl y to Odysse y ’s in rem cla im s ag ai ns t Sp ai n’s pr op erty . 28 U.S.C. § 1 60 4.

d. Th e FSIA d oe s n otco nt ai n apo ss es si onrequi rem en t Fi na ll y , Ody ss ey

po si ts th e Mer ced

es is no t i m

m un e fro m arre stbe cau se th e FSIA o nl y

ap pl ie s wh enso ve rei gn pro pe rty is i n t he so ve rei gn ’s po ss es si on , and Sp ai n was no t i n p os se ss io n o f th e res . This arg um en t d oe s n otres t o n a ny la ng ua ge in th e st atut e, bu t o n Ody ss ey ’s in te rp ret at io n o f Ca li fo rn ia v. Deep Se a Rese ar ch , 52 3 U.S. 4 91 , 11 8 S . Ct. 1 46 4 (1 99 8) , and Aqu a L og , Inc . v. Geor

gi a , 59 4 F .3d13 30 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ), two cas es th atad dr es se d t he so ve rei gn im m un it y of a st at e’s pr op erty

un de r th e Ele ve nt h Am en dm en t. Ody ss ey cla im s t he se cas es

39es tabl is h aso ve rei gn m ay cla im imm un it y in an in rem ad m ira lt y

act io n o nl y

when th e so ve rei gn is inpo ss es si onof t he re s . W e n ot e fi rs t t ha t n ei th er o f th es e cas es co nt ai n a ny ho ld in g re ga rd in g t he imm un it y of afor ei gn so ve rei gn ’s pro pe rty. Rath er, the se cas es co nc ern edst at e pr op erty an d t he Elev en th Am en dm en t. Se e Deep Se a Res ea rc h , 52 3 U.S. at 49 4, 50 7- 08 , 11 8 S . Ct. at14 67 , 14 73 (ho ld in g the Elev en thAm en dm en t d oe s n otba r juri sd ic ti on ov er v es se ls th atare n otin th e St at e’s po ss es si on an d s ta ti ng th e cas e

“ requi res us to ad dr es s t he in te ract io n b etween th e Ele ve nt h Am en dm en t an d t he in
rem adm ira lt y

juri sd ic ti on of t he Fed eral Co urts ”); se e a ls o Aq ua Lo g , 59 4 F .3dat 13 35 (ho ld in g t he Elev en th Am en dm en t d oe s n otba r juri sd ic ti on ov er a ca se wher e Geo rg iacla im edto own lo gs su nkat t he bo tt om of ariv er tha t wer e n otwithi n Geo rg ia ’s actua l p os se ss io n) . Reg ard le ss of a ny po ss es si onrequi rem en t t he co urts ha ve im po se d o n aU.S. st at e cl ai m in g i m m un it y of i ts pro pe rty, the re i s n o s up po rt to co nc lu de th es e cas es alt er the imm un ity Co ng res s s pe ci fic al ly pro vi de d t o pr op erty of f or ei gn st at es un de r th e FSIA. Mo reo ve r, itis cle ar we l oo k o nl y to th e FSIA t o d et erm in e if an y po ss es si on requi rem en t ex is ts . Sub

ject m atte r juri sd ic ti onof t he “ lo wer fed eral co urts is de te rm in edby Con gr es s i n the ex actde gr ees an d c haract er t o wh ic h C on gr es s m ay
40se em

pro pe r fo r th e p ub li c g oo d.” Arg en ti ne Repu bl ic v. Amera da Hess Sh ip pi ng Co rp . , 48 8 U.S. 4 28 , 43 3, 1 09 S. Ct. 6 83 , 68 8 (1 98 9) (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. Co ng res s h as m an da te d “ [c]lai m s o f fo rei gn st at es to im m un it y sh ou ld[] be de ci de d b y

co urts . . . in co nf

orm it y with t he pri nc ip le s s etforth in [th e FSIA].” 28 U.S.C. § 1 60 2. Th e Supr em e Co urt h as m ad e cl ear t he FSIA “pr ov id es th e so le ba sis fo r ob ta in in g ju ris di ct io n o ve r a fo rei gn st at e.” Amera da Hess Sh ip pi ng Co rp . , 48 8 U.S. at44 3, 1 09 S. Ct. at69 3 (e m ph as is ad de d) ; se e a ls o Ver li nden B.V. v. Cen t. Ba nk

of Nig er ia , 46 1 U.S. 4 80 , 49 7- 98 , 10 3 S . Ct. 1 96 2, 1 97 3 (1 98 3) (s ta ti ng “ de ci di ng whet he r st atut ory subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ex is ts un de r th e Fo rei gn So ve rei gn Im

m un it ie s Acten ta il s an ap pl ic at io n o f th e subs ta nt iv e te rm s o f th e Actto de te rm in e whe th er o ne of t he sp eci fi ed ex cep ti on s t o i m

m un it y ap pl ie s” ) (em ph as is ad de d)
. An ex am in at io n o f th e FSIA re ve al s n o p os se ss io n re qu ire m en t ex is ts in an y pa rt o f th e st atut e. Whe n C on gr es s d et erm in ed“ th e ex actde gr ee[] an d c ha ract er” 1 3 of subjec t m atte r juri sd ic ti on ov er the pro pe rty of fo rei gn so ve rei gn s u nd er the FSIA, i t d idno t p ro vi de anex cep ti on to imm un it y for pro pe rty no t i n afor ei gn Ody ssey asser ts the FSIA contains a

possession require ment in § 1605(b). As we have 1 3 previously

stated, § 1605 does not apply beca use it is an exception to the sovereign immunit y of a for eign state provided by § 1604, wher eas immunity here is gr anted unde r § 1609. See 28 U.S.C. § 1604. Rega

rdless, an e x amination of § 1605(b) shows it does not impose a possession require ment. 41so ve rei gn ’s po ss es si on . Amera da Hess Sh ip pi ng Co rp . , 48 8 U.S. at43 3, 1 09 S. Ct. at68 8. Fi na ll y , Ody ss ey , as wel l as Peru , cit es to Co mpa ni a Es pa no la de Na veg ac io n Ma ri ti ma, S.A. v. The N av ema r , 30 3 U.S. 6 8, 5 8 S . Ct. 4 32 (19 38 ), as ho ld in g afor ei gn go ve rn m en t ca nn otcla im so ve rei gn im

m un it y ov er a v es se l n otin it s p os se ss io n. Th e Na vema r was d eci de d b efo re the FSIA was en act ed . Even if 1 4
cas es pri orto th e en actm en t o f th e FSIA i m po se d apo ss es si on requi rem en t, the FSIA p reem

pt s an y pri orpo ss es si on requi rem en t. Se e Amera da Hess Sh ip pi ng Co rp . , 48 8 U.S. at44 3, 1 09 S. Ct. at69 3 (s ta ti ng th e FSIA “ pr ov id es th e so le ba sis fo r ob ta in in g ju ris di ct io n o ve r a fo rei gn st at e”) ( em ph as is ad de d) ; se e a ls o H.R. Rep . 94 -1 48 7, at12 (19 76 ) (n ot in g t he FSIA “ is in te nd edto pre em ptan y ot he r St at e o r Fed eral law (e xc lu di ng ap pl ic ab le in te rn at io na l ag reem en ts )”). We ho ld FSIA i m m un it y ap pl ie s re ga rd le ss of wh ethe r th e p ro pe rty of a fo rei gn so ve rei gn is in th atso ve rei gn ’s po ss es si on at t he ti m e o f arre st . D. Is th e ca rg o a bo ar d the Merc ed es sev er ab le fr om the sh ip wr eck o f the Mer cedes in de te rmi ni ng immu ni ty ?

We do not address whe ther this is an ac curate re prese ntation of The Navemar ’s holding. 1 4 42Odysse y , Peru , andall twen ty-fiv e in di vi du al cla im an ts ass ertth atev enif t he

Mer ced es is imm un e fro m arre st , th e car go ab oa rdth e Mer cedes , andth eref or e th e tre as ur e th atha s b een sal va ge d fr om th e sh ip wreck , is no t i m

m un e. The i nd iv idua l cl ai m an ts arg ue th ey

have a ri gh t t o t he carg o b ecau se th ey are d es cen da nt s o f th os e who ha d a n i nt eres t i n c arg o o n t he Mer cedes , andPerucla im s i t h as a pa tri m on ia l i nt eres t i n c arg o tha t o rig in at edinit s t erri to ry . Tog ethe r, th ey arg ue th e tr eas ur e is no t i m

m un e b ecau se th e car go ab oa rdth e Mer cedes is pri va te pr op erty th atis sev erab le fro m

th e sh ip wreck . Ind eed , Peru ’s andth e in di vi du al cl ai m an ts ’ en ti re ar gu m en ts reg ard in g t he ir r ig ht s t o t he tre as ur e are pre m is edon th e n ot io n t ha t t he carg o, n otth e sh ip wreck , is th e rel ev an t re s . No p art y ha s p oi nt edus to an y

cas e o r st atut e th atdi rect ly ans wers th e qu es ti on of wh ethe r car go ab oa rda su nk enm il it ary ve ss el is en ti tl edto th e sa m e so ve rei gn imm

un it y as t he su nk enve ss el . Non e o f th e cas es cit edby O dyss ey in
supp ort o f it s ar gu m en t t ha t ca rg o i s s ep arat e fro m a ve ss el co nc ern carg o abo arda su nk enm il it ary ve ss el
. As we d is cu ss be lo w, we are p ers ua de d t ha t i n t he co nt ex t o f a s un ke n Sp an is h m il it ary ve ss el , th e car go an d t he sh ip wreckare i nt erl in ke d fo r imm un it y pu rp os es . Two reas on s s up po rt t hi s co nc lu si on : fi rs t, o th er s ta tu te s g ov ern in g
43sh ip wreck s, i nc lu di ng th e Su nk enMi li ta ry Craf t Act(SMC A), Pub . L. No. 10 8- 37 5, § § 1 40 1- 08 , 11 8 S ta t. 1 81 1, 2 09 4- 98 (20 04 ), whi ch wou ldgo ve rnth e sa lv ag e cl ai m s ag ai ns t t he Mer ced es , tre atcarg o a s p artof t he sh ip wreck ; an d s eco nd , th e pr in ci pl es of c om ity

di sc us se d i n t he Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on in Rep ub li c o f the Phi li pp in es v. Pimen te l , 55 3 U.S. 8 51 , 12 8 S . Ct. 2 18 0 (2 00 8) , lea d u s t o c on si de r th e p ot en ti al forin

jury to t he in te res t o f th e so ve rei gn . 1. Ca rg o t reat edas p artof the sh ip wreck In19 02 , th e Uni te d S ta te s an d S pa insi gn eda tr eat y m an da ti ng “ [i]n c as es of sh ip wreck
. . . each party sh al l af fo rdto th e v es se ls of t he ot he r, whe th er b el on gi ng to th e st at e o r to in di vi du al s, t he same ass is ta nc e an d p ro te ct io n a ndth e sa m e imm un it ie s wh ic h wo ul d h av e b een grant edto it s o wn v es se ls in si m il ar ca se s.” 19 02 Treat y

of F rie nd sh ip an d Gen eral Rel at io ns Bet ween th e Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca an d S pa in , art . X, Jul y 3, 1 90 2, 3 3 S ta t. 2 10 5. Un de r th is tre aty , th e Uni te d S ta te s m

us t af fo rdth e Mer cedes , as ash ip wreck edSp an is h war sh ip , th e sa m e p ro te ct io n i t wo ul d g iv e a s hi pwr eck edUni te d S ta te s m il it ary ve ss el
. The Uni te d S ta te s co ns id ers th e car go of ash ip wreck edU.S. m il it ary ve ss el pa rt o f th e sh ip wreckan d g iv es itth e sa m e imm un it ie s as th e sh ip wreck . Und er the SMC A, th e ri gh ts , ti tl e an d i nt eres t o f th e Uni te d S ta te s i n a ny sun ke n m il it ary craf t
44are p ro te ct edab se ntan“ ex pr es s d iv es ti tu re o f ti tl e.” § 14 01 , 11 8 S ta t. at20 94 .

The de fin it io n o f a “ su nk enm il it ary craf t” in cl ud es a su nk enwars hi p o r ot he r m il it ary ve ss el , as wel l as “ al l o r an y po rti on of . . . th e as so ci at edco nt en ts of a craf t.” § 14 08 (3 )(C) , 11 8 S ta t. at20 98 . “ Ass oc ia te d c on te nt s” are d efi ne d a s “ th e equi pm en t, ca rg o , andco nt en ts of asu nk enm il it ary craf t t ha t ar e wit hi n i ts de br is fie ld
. . . [an d] th e rem ai ns an d p ers on al effe ct s o f th e cre w andpa ss en ge rs of a
su nk enm il it ary craf

t t ha t ar e wit hi n i ts de br is fie ld .” § 1 40 8( 1) , 11 8 S ta t. at20 97 (em ph as is ad de d) . Thu s, u nd er the 19 02 tre aty , th e Mer ced es an d i ts carg o a re en ti tl edto th e sa m e imm

un it ie s p ro vi de d b y

th e SMC A. Treat in g t he carg o a s p artof t he sh ip wreck ed Mer cedes is als o c on si st en t wit h t he Aban do ne d S hi pwr eckAct (AS A), Pub . L. 100 -2 98 , § 2 10 2( d) , 10 2 S ta t. 43 2 (1 98 8) . Und er the ASA, th e Fed eral Gov ern m en t as se rts an d t ran sf ers ti tl e o f
an y “ ab an do ne d s hi pwr eck ” to th e st at e in who se subm erg edlan ds th e wreckis
em be dd ed . Like th e SMC A, th e ASA de fin es “ sh ip wreck ” as “ a v es se l o r wreck , it s ca rg o an d o th er co nt en ts .” Id
. (em ph as is ad de d) ; se e a ls o U.S. Dep’t o f In te rio r, Nati on al ParkServ ic e Aband on edSh ip wreckAct Gu id el in es , 55 Fed . Reg . 50 11 6- 01 , 50 12 1 (De c. 4, 1 99 0) (“ Any cargo ab oa rda ve ss el en ti tl edto so ve rei gn imm un it y als o g en eral ly rem ai ns th e p ro pe rty of the fla g n at io n u nl es s t he carg o

45ha d e arl ie r be enun la wfu ll y cap tu redby tha t n at io n.” ). Ther efo re, u nd er the ASA, th e car go th atwas abo ardth e Mer cedes wou ldno t b e co ns id eredsep arat e fro m th e sh ip wreck
. 1 5 Whi le th e SMC A andth e ASA do no t s ta te carg o i s p artof t he ve ss el for imm un it y pu rp os es , th ey

sh ow t he pro te ct io ns award edto a su nk enso ve rei gn ve ss el als o e xt en d t o t he carg o abo ardth atve ss el . As ev id en cedby the SMCA, th os e p ro te ct io ns are h ei gh te ne d wh enth e su nk enve ss el is a m il it ary ve ss el . W e gr an t t he carg o o n asu nk enSp an is h m il it ary ve ss el th e sa m e so ve rei gn imm un it y pr ot ect io n we g ran t t he ve ss el
. 2. The pro m ot io n o f Sp ai n’s co m it y in te res t Gran ti ng th e car go on a su nk enSp an is h m il it ary ve ss el th e sa m e so ve rei gn imm un it y pro te ct io n a s t he ve ss el is als o c on si st en t wi th th e h ei gh te ne d p ro te ct io n
In addition, a site wher e the r emains of a vessel ar e strewn on the oce an floor is still a 1 5 shipwrec k even if

an intact ve ssel no longe r re mains. Our conc lusion is based on the plain meaningof “shipwr eck,” which is define d as “a ship’s wrec kag e.” See Bla ck’s L aw Dic tionary 1504 (9th ed. 2009) ( citing 4 James Kent, Commentarie s on America n L aw at 323 n. (b) (G eorg e Comstock ed., 11th ed. 1866) (stating a shipwrec k includes a ve ssel which “is da shed to piece s”)) . Under

its plain definition, a shipwreck c overs not only a sunken intac t vessel, but also a vesse l that was “da shed to piece s” or e x ploded at the surf ace and then sa

nk to the ocea

n floor. Our plain-me aninginterpre tation of “shipwre ck” is supporte d by statutory definitions. Fur thermore , Ody ssey

filed both its origina l complaint ag ainst and a motion seekingthe arr est of “T he Unidentifie d Shipwrecke d Vessel, its appa rel, tac kle, appur

tenanc es and c arg o.” The district cour

t, at Ody ssey ’s re quest, issued a wa rra nt for the a

rre st of “The Unidentified Shipwrecke d Vessel, its appa rel, tac kle, appur

tenanc es and c arg o.” 46we gr an t s ov erei gn s wh enth ere i s a p ot en ti al of i nju ry to th e so ve rei gn ’s in te res t. In Pimen te l , th e Rep ub li c o f th e Ph il ip pi ne s an d aso ve rei gn Fil ip in o C omm is si on were d is m is se d a s d efen da nt s i n a n i nt erp le ad er ac ti on pu rs ua ntto th e FSIA. 5 53 U.S. at 8 59 , 12 8 S . Ct. at21 86 . The ac ti on co nc ern edva rio us pa rti es ’ cl ai m s ag ai ns t as se ts in a Merril l Lync h b ro ke rag e acc ou nt , whi ch in cl ud edfun ds al le ge dl y il li ci tl y ob ta in edby an ex -Pre si de ntof t he Ph il ip pi ne s. Id
. at85 7, 1 28 S. Ct . at 2 18 5. Aft er the Ph il ip pi ne s an d t he Co m m is si on were d is m is se d, t he di st ric t co urt awa rd edth e as se ts to an ot he r pa rty, reaso ni ng th e Ph il ip pi ne s’ andth e Co m m is si on ’s cla im s ag ai ns t the ass et s h adso li tt le li ke li ho odof s uc ces s o n t he
m eri ts th atth e act io n c ou ldpro ceedwitho utth em . Id. at 8 60 , 12 8 S . Ct. at21 87 . The Supr em e Co urt re ve rs ed , con cl ud in g t ha t wh ena so ve rei gn th atis a requi red pa rty in a n i nt erp le ad er ac ti on ass ert s s ov erei gn imm un it y an d ra is es no n- fri vo lo us cl ai m s, “ di sm is sa l o f th e act io n m us t b e o rd eredwher e th ere i s a p ot en ti al forin jury to th e in te res t o f th e ab se ntso ve rei gn .” Id
. at 8 67 , 12 8 S . Ct. at21 91 . The Co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t i n fa il in g t o d is m is s t he act io n, the di st ric t co urt fa il edto gi ve ful l effe ctto so ve rei gn imm

un it y an d t he pro m ot io n o f th e co m it y in te res t tha t un de rli es th atdo ctrin e. Id
. at 8 65 -6 6, 1 28 S. Ct. at21 90 . It s ta te d t he “ Rep ub li c an d t he Co m

m is si on ha ve a un ique in te res t i n re so lv in g t he own ers hi p o f orcla im s to th e [] ass et s,” a nda “ sp eci fic affro nt[] co ul d re su ltto th e Rep ub li c an d t he 47Co m

m is si on if t he pro pe rty the y cla im is sei zedby the de cree of afor ei gn co urt.” Id
. at 8 66 , 12 8 S . Ct. at21 90 . Whi le Pimen te l

is factua ll y

di st in gu is habl e, we fi ndit s re as on in g i ns tru ct iv e. The same “pr om ot io n o f th e co m it y in te res t” th atledth e Supr em e Co urt t o d is m is s th e act io n i n Pimen te l

co m pe ls th is Co urt t o t reatth e car go an d t he Mer cedes as on e fo r so ve rei gn imm

un it y pu rp os es . Id

. There is anun de ni ab le po te nt ia l fo r in jury to Sp ai n’s i nt eres t i f we se pa rat edth e Mer ced es fro m it s ca rg o a ndup he ldan arre stof t he carg o fo un d a ndsal va ge d fr om a wars hi p t ha t i s en ti tl edto imm un it y . The si lv er co in s an d a ll ot he r art ifa ct s Ody ss ey ha s s al va ge d a ndflo wn t o Tam pa cam e fro m

th e Mer cedes . Whi le va rio us pa rti es m ay have co gn iz ab le cla im s ag ai ns t p art s o f th e rec ov ered re s , eve n b y Odysse y ’s own est im at e ap pr ox im at el y 25 % of t he carg o, m eas ur edby val ue , was Sp an is h g ov ern m en t p ro pe rty. Mo reo ve r, Sp ai n h as anev engre at er i nt eres t i n t he so ve rei gn imm un it y of i ts su nk enwars hi ps . Thu s, t he FSIA i m m un it y fro m in rem su it s i n U.S. co urts gi ve n to th e Mer cedes ap pl ie s t o t he sh ip wreckas awho le , in cl ud in g t he carg o, ev enif
su ch carg o was own edby priv at e in di vi du al s o r ha s b een sal va ge d fr om th e wreck
. 1 6
We do not hold the recove red res is ulti mately Spanish property . Rather, wemere ly 1 6 hold the sovere ign immunity owed the shipwr eck of

the Merc edes also applies to any carg o the 48Becaus e th e car go ab oa rdth e Mer cedes is tre at edas p artof t he sh ip wreckof

th e Mer cedes fo r so ve rei gn imm un it y pu rp os es , th e Mer cedes ’ imm un it y pre cl ud es Peru ’s att em

ptto in st itut e an act io n i n Un it edSta te s co urts ag ai ns t an y pa rt o f th e Mer ced es oran y carg o i t was carry in g wh enitsan k. Th is ap pl ie s wh ethe r orno t Peruha s a p atrimoni al in te res t i n t he carg o. Th is als o app li es to th e cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e re s by the twen ty-fiv e in di vi du al cla im an ts . 1 7 E. Did

th e dis tr ic t co ur t er r w he n i t o rder ed th e re s r el ea se d t o the cu st od y o f Sp ai n? The di stric t co urt v acat edth e arre stan d o rd eredOdysse y , as the subs ti tu te cu st od ia n, t o re tu rnth e rec ov ered res to Sp ai n. Ody ss ey arg ue s t hi s o rd er s erv es as a subs tant iv e ru li ng on th e m eri ts th atis be y on d t he di st ric t co urt’s p owe r be cau se th e co urt l ack s s ub

ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on . Ody ss ey co nt en ds th e co urt i s o nl y em po weredto return t he pa rti es to th ei r po si ti on s p rio r to th e arr es t o f th e re s an d, th eref or e, th e rec ov ered re s sh ou ldbe returne d t o Od y ss ey be cau se Odysse y

was i n po ss es si on of t he re s im

m ed ia te ly prio r to th e arr es t. Itarg ue s the di st ric t co urt’s

Merc edes was c arr

ying when it sank. This holding is limit ed to the fa cts in this case, whe re the carg o was found a board a 1 7 sunken ac tive duty

Spanish mil itary

vessel and w as leg ally

place d aboar d the vessel. 49or de r “ tra ns ferr ed ” th e p ro pe rty from Odysse y to Sp ai n, wh ic h t he di st ric t co urt h ad
no au th or it y

to do . W e d is ag ree. Whe n t hi s ac ti onwas i ni ti at ed , Ody ss ey fil eda m ot io n fo r anord er d ire ct in g th e cl erkto is su e a warr an t o f arre st in rem ag ai ns t the sh ip wreck edve ss el , it s ap pa rel , tac kl e, ap pu rte na nc es , andcarg o. Ody ss ey st at ed“ [a]ny fu rth er arti fact s reco ve redfro m

th e Defen da ntSh ip wreck edVess el wil l b e rec ov eredun de r th e juri sd ic ti on of t hi s C ou rt, a ndwil l b e wit hi n t he actua l an d/ orco ns tru ct iv e po ss es si on of t hi s C ou rt o r it s dul y -ap po in te d s ub st itut e cu st od ia n dur in g t he pe nd en cy of t hi s ac ti on .” Odysse y ’s Verif ie d C om pl ai ntin Adm ira lty

In R em at 4
- 5, Dk t. 1 . The co urt i ss ue d aW arra ntof Arr es t In Rem ag ai ns t t he sh ip wreck ed
ve ss el an d i ts ap pa rel , tac kl e, ap pu rte na nc es , andcarg o. Th e warra ntco m m an de d th e U.S. Mars ha l t o t ak e p os se ss io n o f th e res an d a ny futur e art ifa ct s re co ve red fro m th e sh ip wreck edve ss el
. The di st ric t co urt ap po in te d Od y ss ey as s ub st itut e cu st od ia n o f th e sh ip wreck edve ss el an d a ny reco ve redart ifa ct s “ un ti l fu rth er o rd er of th is Co urt.” Ord . App oi nt in g S ub st itut e Cu st od ia n a t 2 , Dkt . 8. By vi rtu e o f th e is su an ce o f th e arre stwarran t, the co urt i s cu rren tl y in po ss es si on of app ro xi m at el y 59 4,0 00 reco ve redco in s an d o th er arti fact s. It ne ces sa ril y

fol lo ws t ha t t he co urt, af te r de te rm in in g t he re s was i m m un e fro m
50arre st , m

us t h av e th e ab il it y

to rel eas e th e re s fro m

it s cu st od y . A con tra ry co nc lu si on wou ldlea d i ne xo rab ly to co urt cu st od y in pe rp et ui ty . W e h av e de te rm in edth e arr es t o f th e rec ov ered re s m us t b e v acat ed , andth eref or e th e di st ric t co urt m

us t n ow re le as e th e p ro pe rty. The Fed . R. Civ . P. Sup pl em en ta l Ad m ira lt y Ru le s p ro vi de li tt le in stru ct io n on ho w a co urt s ho ul d re le as e p rev io us ly arres te d p ro pe rty whenth e co urt d oe s n ot ha ve subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ov er the pro pe rty. Sup pl em en ta l Ru le E(5) (d ) st at es “ th e p ro pe rty arres te d s ha ll be rel eas edon ly by ord er o f th e co urt, o n s uc h te rm s an d c on di ti on s . . . as t he co urt m ay requi re.” Th e ru le do es no t s ta te to who m th e re s sh ou ldbe rel eas ed , on ly tha t i t s ho ul d b e rel eas edacco rd in g t o t he

“ te rm s an d c on di ti on s” be stsee n fi t b y th e co urt. W e n ot e, th e rel eas e fro m cu st od y so ug htby O dyss ey

wou ldno t, as Odysse y co nt en ds , return m at te rs to th e st atus qu o a t t he co m m en cem en t o f th is su it . The U.S. Mars ha l s ei zedth e re s ap pr ox im at el y on e m on thaft er Ody ss ey di sc ov eredth e si te in Marc h o f 20 07 . Ody ss ey co nt in ue d re co ve ry

op erat io ns aft er the ord er o f
arre st . Whi le Odysse y

m ay ha ve ha d p rio r cu st ody

of s om e it em s fr om

th e si te , th e rem ai nd er o f th e rec ov ered re s was re cei ve d i n Ody ss ey ’s cap aci ty as cu st od ia n fo r an d u nd er the au th or it y

an d p ro te ct io n o f th e co urt.

51Mo reo ve r, rel eas in g t he re s to th e cu st ody of S pa in is no t, as Odysse y at te m pt s t o c ha ract eri ze i t, a “ tra ns fer.” Ody ss ey ho ld s t he re s as asubs ti tu te cu st od ia n o f th e d is tri ctco urt; th e re s rem ai ns in cu st od ia leg is (in th e co urt’s po ss es si on ). By

ord eri ng Odysse y , as s ub st itut e cu st od ia n, t o re le as e th e re s in to Sp ai n’s cu st ody , th e co urt i s re li nq ui sh in g i ts co nt ro l o f th e re s an d re le as in g i t t o th e p art y th atha s a s ov erei gn in te res t i n i t. Fu rth er, Sp ai n’s s ov erei gn in te res t i n th e re s ex is te d b efo re Ody ss ey in it ia te d t hi s ac ti on an d d ep os it edth e p art s o f th e re s itha d s al va ge d fr om

th e sh ip wreck
. Infact , rel eas in g the re s to Odysse y rathe r th anSp ai n wo ul d b e in co ns is te nt wit h S pa in ’s rig ht s u nd er the 19 02 Treat y of F rie nd sh ip an d Gen eral Rel at io ns be twee n the Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca an d S pa in . As di sc us se d p rev io us ly, th is tre aty requi res th e Uni te d S ta te s t o e xt en d t o S pa ni sh sh ip wreck edve ss el s t he
sa m e p ro te ct io n a ndimm un it ie s af fo rd edto it s o wn s hi pwr eck edve ss el s i n s im il ar ci rcu m st an ces . 19 02 Treat y of F rie nd sh ip an d Gen eral Rel at io ns Between th e Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca an d S pa in , art . X, Jul y 3, 1 90 2, 3 3 S ta t. 2 10 5. Th e Uni te d S ta te s p ro te ct s i ts su nk enwars hi ps fro m un au th or iz edpri va te pa rty acces s an d p os se ss io n. Se e SMC A, §§ 14 02 (b ), 14 08 , 11 8 S ta t. 2 09 4. Th us , th e 1 90 2 Treat y requi res th e Mer ced

es be affo rd edth e sa m e p ro te ct io n a ndimm un it ie s fr om un au th or iz edacce ss an d s al va ge . 52Fi na ll y , th e Supr em e Co urt’s re as on in g i n Pimen te l , whi ch ledus to

co nc lu de th e car go reco ve redfro m th e Mer cedes m

us t re cei ve th e sa m e so ve rei gn imm un it y pro te ct io n a s t he Mer cedes it se lf, a ls o s up po rts ou r de ci si on to affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er t o re le as e th e re s in to Sp ai n’s cu st od y . The Supr em e Co urt n ot edth e “ sp eci fic affro ntth atco ul d re su lt ” to a fo rei gn st at e “ if p ro pe rty th ey cla im is sei zedby the de cree of afor ei gn co urt.” Pimen te l , 55 3 U.S. at86 6, 12 8 S . Ct. at21 90 . The s am e aff ro ntwou ldres ul t h ere i f th e re s , whi ch th e di st ric t co urt i m

pr op erl y arre st ed , was t he n re le as edto Odysse y . This wou ldfor ce Sp ai n t o fi le su itag ai ns t Ody ss ey to retrie ve pro pe rty tha t i s p ro te ct edby Spai n’s so ve rei gn imm

un it y . Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, t he di st ric t co urt d idno t err whe n i t o rd ered Odysse y to rel eas e th e rec ov ered re s to th e cu st ody of S pa in
. IV. CONCLUSION W e AFFIR M the di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f Sp ai n’s m ot io n t o d is m is s. AFFIRMED.

53