FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 19, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 69 5

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 9 :0 9- cv -8 05 94 -WPD THE CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us THAT CERTAIN UN

NAMED GRAY, TW O-STORY VESSEL APPROXIM ATELY FIFTY-SEVEN FEET IN LEN GTH, he r en gi ne s, t ack le , app arel , furni tu re, equi pm en t an d a ll ot he r ne ces sa rie s ap pe rta in in g a ndbe lo ng in g i n re m , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt , FANE LOZMAN, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Cl ai m an t-Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st19 , 20 11 )B e f

o r e E D M OND S ON a

n d M ARC U S , C ir cu it Judg es , an d FAW S E T T , D i s t ri c t J u d g e . * MARC US, Cir cu itJu dg e: Cl ai m an t-Ap pe ll an t Fa ne Lozm anap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s en try of an or de r of pa rti al su m

m ary jud gm en t an d, fo ll owi ng a two -d ay be nc h t ria l, an ord er of fin al jud gm en t fo r Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee Ci ty of Ri vi era B each (“ Ci ty”) inanin rem pro ceed in g a ga in stDefen da ntUnn am edGray , Two-St ory Vess el App ro xi m at el y

Fif ty-Seve n F eetin Leng th (“ Defen da nt ”). The Cit y fil eda co m pl ai ntin adm ira lt y

ag ai ns t t he Defen da nt , firs t, cl ai m in g tha t t he Defen da nt co m m it te d t he m ari ti m e to rt o f tr es pa ss , bec au se th e Defen da ntrem ai ne d a t t he Ci ty m ari naaft er the City expl ic it ly revo ke d i ts co ns en t, an d s eco nd , see ki ng to fo recl os e it s m ari ti m e li enforne ces sa rie s (u np ai d d oc ka ge pro vi de d t o t he Defen da ntby the City ). On p art ia l s umm ary jud gm en t, the di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t i t h adadm ira lt y juri sd ic ti on ov er the Defen da ntbe cau se th e Defen da ntwas i nd eeda “ ve ss el ” u nd er 1 U.S.C. § 3 , andth atth e Defen da ntwas li ab le form ari ti m e tr es pa ss . Aftera be nc h tria l, the di st ric t co urt d et erm in edth at 1 th e tr es pa ss ga ve ris e to no m in al da m ag es of $ 1 a ndth atth e Defen da ntowedth e

Honora ble Patricia C. F awse tt, United States District J udg e for the Middle District of * Florida , sitti ngby

designation. On appe al, L ozman does not challeng e the district cour t’s trespass r

uling ( except to the 1 extent that he claims the district court lac ked jurisdiction in the first place ). 2Ci ty app ro xi m at el y $3 ,00 0 u nd er the m ari ti m e li en . After t ho ro ug h re vi ew, we AFFIRM th e jud gm en ts of t he di st ric t co urt i n a ll res pe ct s. I. The rel ev an t fa ct s ar e th es e. Lozm anpu rch as edth e Defen da ntve ss el in 20 02 . After p ur ch as in g t he Defen dant , Lozm anha d i t t owe d fr om a lo cat io n n ear Fo rt M y ers , Flo rid a to Nort h B each Vil la ge , Flo rid a, a d is ta nc e o f atlea st20 0 m il es . In No rth Bay Vil la ge , Lozm anli ve d i n t he Defen da ntfro m th e ti m e o f pu rch as e unt il Hurr ic an e Wilm a st ru ckin lat e 2 00 5. Lozm anha d the Defen da nt 2 to wedto th e Ci ty m ari nain Marc h 2 00 6, wh ere h e co nt in ue d t o u se th e Defen da nt as hi s p rimary

res id en ce u nt il it s arres t i n Ap ril 20 09 . The Cit y own s an d o pe rat es a m

un ic ip al m ari naon th e Atl an ti c In tra co as ta l W at erway. The m ari napro vi de s wetan d d ry st or ag e fo r ap pr ox im at el y 51 0 ve ss el s, b ot h c omm erci al an d re crea ti on al . The m ari nalea se s s li ps to ve ss el s o n bo th a m on th ly bas is an d a t a h ig he r da il y tra ns ie ntrat e. On M arch 10 , 20 06 , Loz m anan d t he Cit y

m ari naen te redin to a “ W et -Sl ip or Dry Sto rag e Agr eem en t” (th e “ Agr eem en t” ). It ca ll edforLozm anto pa y a m on th ly doc ka ge fee o f

Acc ordingto L ozman, he moved the De fenda nt to two differe nt marinas in North B ay 2 Villag e af ter he was e victed fr om another ma rina for attempting to r equire that marina to provide rea sonable a ccommodation -- in the form of a whee lchair r amp -- f

or his disabled houseboat neighbor. 3$1 ,17 4.4 8 b y th e fi rs t o f eac h m on th , anddo ck ag e was pro vi de d o n am on thto m on th ba si s. Itis un di sp ut edth atLozm anpa idth e en ti re m on th ly doc ka ge fee fo r th e m on th of M arch 20 06 , alt ho ug h h e arri ve d a t t he m ari naso m e ti m e in th e m id dl e o f th e m on th . Co nf li ct-- in de ed , li ti gi ou s co nf li ct-- b etween th e Ci ty andLozm anerupt ed sh ortl y aft er Lo zm an ’s arri va l. Acco rd in g t o Lo zm an , on May 10, 2 00 6, o ne da y be fo re the n- Gov ern orJeb Bu sh si gn edanan ti -em in en t d om ai n b il l, the Cit y en te redin to anag reem en t wi th a pr iv at e d ev el op er fo r th e red ev el op m en t o f th e m ari na . Seek in g t o s cu tt le th e red ev el op m en t ag reem en t, Lo zm anfil edsu itin Pal m Beac h C ou nt y

Cir cu itCo urt, al le gi ng th atth e Ci ty’ s M ay 10 , 20 06 m eet in g wit h t he de ve lo pe r vi ol at edth e Fl or id a Su ns hi ne Law, Fla. St at . § 2 86 .01 1, be cau se th e p ub li c was on ly giv enon e d ay ’s no ti ce o f th e m eet in g. Whil e itis no t cl ear f ro m th e rec or d h ow t ha t l aws ui t was res ol ve d, t he red ev el op m en t p la n was ul ti m at el y

po stpo ne d o r ab an do ne d, a r es ul t fo r whi ch Lozm antak es cred it . On Au gu st9, 2 00 6, t he Cit y is su edLozm ana no ti ce o f ev ic ti on fro m th e m ari na , andsubs eque nt ly file d a n e vi ct io n s ui t al so in th e Ci rcu itCo urt fo r Pal m Bea chCo un ty. The C it y ’s pu rp orte d re as on s fo r th e ev ic ti on were t ha t Lo zm an ha d fa il edto m

uz zl e h is ten -p ou ndda sc hu ndan d h adus edun li cen se d re pa ir pe rs on s t o p erfo rm

workon th e Defen da nt . In t he ev ic ti on pro ceed in gs , th e Ci ty 4arg ue d o n s umm ary jud gm en t tha t t he Agre em en t b etween Lozm anan d t he Cit y

es tabl is he d ano nr es id en ti al ten an cy un de r Fl or id a la w. The Ci rcu itCo urt ag reed th atth e Agr eem en t es tabl is he d ano nr es id en ti al ten an cy un de r Fl or id a la w andwas th eref or e g ov ern edby Flo rid a’s land lo rd -te na ntst atut e. The c ou rt, h owe ve r, de ni edth e Ci ty’ s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t b ecau se Lozm anha d ra is edan is su e o f m at eri al factas t o wh ethe r th e ev ic ti on was i m pr op er re ta li at io n fo r hi s op po si ti on to th e red ev el op m en t p la n. OnMarc h 2 , 20 07 , aft er a thr ee-d ay tri al , a jury retu rn eda ve rd ic t i n Lo zm an ’s fav or , fin di ng th atLozm an ’s pro te ct edsp eech was a subs tant ia l o r m ot iv at in g fa ct or in th e Ci ty’ s at te m

ptto term in at e th e le as e, an d t ha t t he att em

pt edterm in at io n wo ul d n otha ve oc curredab se ntth e p ro te ct ed sp eech . Lozm anco nt in ue d t o p ay th e m on th ly doc ka ge fee t hr ou gh ou t t he pr oc eed in gs , andrem ai ne d a t t he m ari na . On J un e 1 4, 2 00 7, a f

ew m on th s af

te r Loz m an ’s st at e co urt v ic to ry , th e Ri vi era B each Cit y

Co un ci l u na ni m ou sl y

pa ss eda res ol ut io n a do pt in g arev is ed do ck ag e ag reem en t an d a cco m panyin g M ari naRu le s & Reg ul at io ns . The rev is ed ag reem en t an d ru le s an d re gu la ti on s re qu ire all ve ss el s d oc ke d a t t he m ari naan d th ei r own ers to : (1 ) se cu re an d m ai nt ai n l iabi li ty ins ur an ce t o s pe ci fie d l im it s an d na m e th e m ari naas a n a dd it io na l i ns ur ed ; (2 ) sh ow p ro of of v al idreg is tra ti on or do cu m en ta ti on ; (3 ) be op erat io na l an d c ap ab le of v acat in g t he m ari naincas e o f an 5em erg en cy ; an d (4 ) co m pl y with t he Flo rid a Cl ean Vess el Act, Fl a. St at . § 3 27 .53 , whi ch , am on g o th er thi ng s, p ro hi bi ts own ers of v es se ls or f lo at in g s tru ctur es fro m di sc ha rg in g ra w sewa ge in to Flo rid a wat ers . The Cit y m ari nasen t n um ero us let te rs to all m ari nares id en ts an d c us to m ers de sc rib in g t he ne w requi rem en ts . On o r ab ou t J ul y 25 , 20 07 , th e m ari nasen t i ts in it ia l n ot ic e o f th e n ew requi rem en ts an d p ro vi de d re si de nt s an d c us to m ers with th e rev is eddo ck ag e ag reem en t t o b e ex ecu te d b y Sep te m be r 30 , 20 07 . The m ari na se ntcu st om ers anad di ti on al let te r on Nov em be r 13 , 20 07 , furth er d es cri bi ng th e ne w in su ran ce re qu ire m en ts . On Ja nu ary 25 , 20 08 , th e m ari nasen t Lo zm ana le tt er re pe at in g t he ne w in su ran ce re qu ire m en ts an d l is ti ng de fic ie nc ie s i n h is an d th e Defen da nt ’s com

pl ia nc e wit h t he m ari na ’s new ru le s an d re gu la ti on s. Sp eci fic al ly, th e le tt er i nf orm edLozm anth athe ne ed edto si gn a rev is eddo ck ag e ag reem en t, tha t h e la ck edsu ffi ci en t i ns ur an ce co ve rag e fo r th e Defen da nt , andth at he ne ed edto pro vi de in su ran ce an d re gi st rat io n d oc um en ta ti on to th e m ari na . Two m on th s l at er, the m ari nape rfo rm edanass es sm en t o f th e v es se ls ’ co m pl ia nc e wit h t he Cit y

res ol ut io n, an d d et erm in edth atsev en te enve ss el s d oc ke d a t t he m ari na , in cl ud in g t he Defen da nt , were n otin co m pl ia nc e. On Ap ril 22 , 20 08 , th e

3 Of the se ventee n vessels that we re not in complianc e as of the Marc h 2008 assessment, 3 some later c ame into compliance or vac ated the ma rina; others w ere abandone d by their owne rs; and other s were donated to cha rity and re moved from the ma rina. TheDef

endant wa s the only 6m ari nasen t Lo zm ana le tt er i nf orm in g h im

th athe ha d m is se d t he de ad li ne to ex ecu te a ne w agr eem en t an d p ro cedur es to en fo rce t he Cit y ’s rig ht s wo ul d b e im pl em en te d a ga in stth e Defen da nt . Loz m ancla im s t ha t h e n ev er re cei ve d t he se let te rs . He do es no t d is pu te , ho wev er, tha t h e rec ei ve d alet te r fro m th e m ari nada te d M arch 6, 2 00 9, wh ic h pr ov id edfin al no ti ce o f th e m ari na ’s rev oc at io n o f pe rm is si on forth e Defen da ntto rem ai n a t t he m ari naun le ss (1) Lozm anbro ug htth e Defen da ntin to co m pl ia nc e wit h t he Cit y

res ol ut io n’s n ew requi rem en ts , (2) Lozm anpa idth e o ut st an di ng ba la nc e o n t he acco un t, an d (3 ) Loz m anex ecu te d t he rev is eddo ck ag e ag reem en t. The let te r st at edth at“ [s ]hou ldy ou r ve ss el rem ai n a ndy ou fai l t o p ay y ou r acc ou nt in ful l, ex ecu te th e ‘Mari naDock ag e Agr eem en t,’ andot he rwis e b rin g you r ve ss el in to co m pl ia nc e wit h t he Agre em en t’s p ro vi si on s b y Apri l 1 , 20 09 , th e Ci ty w il l pr om pt ly ins ti tu te leg al pro ceed in gs ag ai ns t you a ndy ou r ve ss el fortre sp as s an d to for ecl os e th e Ci ty’ s l ie n o n you r ve ss el .” It i s u nd is pu te d t ha t Lo zm anne ve r ex ecu te d t he ne w agr eem en t an d t ha t t he Defen da ntrem ai ne d a t t he m ari naaft er Apr il 1, 2 00 9. Acco rd in gl y , on Apri l 2 0, 2 00 9, t he Cit y fil eda two -co un t v eri fie d co m pl ai ntin adm ira lt y

ag ai ns t t he Defen da ntto for ecl os e it s m ari ti m e li en s fo r noncompliant cra ft as of A pril 1, 2009. 7“ ne ces sa rie s” (do ck ag e p ro vi de d b y th e Ci ty m ari nato th e Defen da nt ), un de r 46 U.S.C. § 3 13 42 , an d fo r tr es pa ss . The Un it edSta te s Di stric t Co urt fo r th e 4 So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a is su eda warra ntforth e arr es t o f th e Defen dantun de r Supp le m en ta l Ru le C fo r Certa in Mari ti m e an d Ad m ira lt y Cla im s, wh ic h p ro vi de s, in rel ev an t p art , th at“ [i]f th e co nd it io ns foranin rem act io n app ear t o e xi st , th e co urt m us t i ss ue anord er d ire ct in g t he cle rkto is su e a warr an t fo r th e arr es t o f th e ve ss el or o th er p ro pe rty tha t i s t he subjec t o f th e act io n.” Fed . R. Civ . P. Sup p. Ru le C(3 )(a) (i) . On th e aft ern oo n o f Apr il 20 , 20 09 , th e Uni te d S ta te s M ars ha l arre st edth e Defen da nt , andha d i t t owe d fr om th e Ci ty m ari nato Mi am i, Fl or id a, a di st an ce o f ap pr ox im at el y eig ht y m il es . The n ex t d ay , Lozm anfil ed , pro se, an 5 em erg en cy

m ot io n t o d is m is s t he co m pl ai ntan d re tu rnth e Defen da ntto th e

46 U.S.C. § 31342 provides: 4 (a) Ex cept a s provided in subsection (b) of this section, a pe rson providing nece ssaries to a ve ssel on the orde r of the owner or a per son authorized by

the owner -- (1) ha s a maritime lien on the ve ssel; (2) may bringa civil ac tion in rem to enforc e the lien; and (3) is not requir ed to alleg e or pr ove in the ac tion that credit wa s g iven to the vessel. (b) This sec tion does not apply to a public vessel. L ozman procee ded pro sefor the e ntirety of the c ase be low, including the bench tr ial. 5 He now ha s repr esentation on appeal. 8m ari na . After ahe ari ng onApri l 2 3, 2 00 9, t he di st ric t co urt d en ie d Lo zm an ’s

m ot io n. On Au gu st12 , 20 09 , th e Ci ty m ov edforpa rti al su m m ary jud gm en t o n i ts m ari ti m e tr es pa ss cla im . After c on si de rin g Lo zm an ’s res po ns e, th e d is tri ctco urt gr an te d t he Cit y ’s m ot io n, fi nd in g t ha t t he Defen da ntwas a“ ve ss el ” fo r pu rp os es of fed eral adm ira lt y

juri sd ic ti on . The d is tri ctco urt al so fou ndth atth e Defen da nt was tre sp as si ng on th e m ari naas o f Apr il 1, 2 00 9. Lo zm anha d re cei ve d n ot ic e o f th e Defen da nt ’s fai lu re t o c om pl y with t he m ari narul es an d re gu la ti on s i n e arl y Mar ch20 09 , andth e n ot ic e ex pr es sl y term in at edth e Ci ty’ s co ns en t as of Ap ril 1, 20 09 . The Defe nd an t, h owe ve r, rem ai ne d a t t he m ari naun ti l i ts arre ston Apri l 2 0, 20 09 . The d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t t he Defen da ntve ss el rem ai ne d a t the m ari naaft er the Cit y

term in at edco ns en t. On No ve m

be r 23 an d 2 4, 2 00 9, the di st ric t co urt h el d atwo -d ay be nc h t ria l on th e is su es of d am ag es forth e tr es pa ss cla im , andli ab il it y an d d am ag es for

th e m ari ti m e li enforne ces sa rie s cl ai m . On Ja nu ary 6, 2 01 0, t he di st ric t co urt en te red it s fi nd in gs of f

actan d c on cl us io ns of l aw, an d i ss ue d an o rd er o f fi na l ju dg m en t in th e Ci ty’ s fa vo r. The d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t t he Defen da nt ’s acco un t was de li nq ue ntas o f Apr il 20 , 20 09 in th e am ou ntof $ 3,0 39 .88 . The co urt cr ed it edth e Ci ty m ari na ’s led ge r an d t he tes ti m on y of t he Cit y ’s for en si c acc ou nt an t i n 9de te rm in in g t he am ou ntowed . The co urt fo un d n o re al ha rm res ul ti ng fro m

th e tre sp as s, awa rd in g the Cit y no m in al da m ag es of $ 1. On Fe brua ry

25 , 20 10 , th e en try of fi na l ju dg m en t was am en de d t o i nc lu de $3 ,05 3.2 6 i n p reju dg m en t i nt eres t p lu s cu st od ia l fe es . The d is tri ctco urt al so or de redth e U.S. Mars ha l t o re le as e th e Defen da ntan d e xe cu te it s s al e in sa ti sf act io n o f th e jud gm en t. Loz m anfil edanem erg en cy m ot io n t o s ta y

th e sa le an d t o s tay

en fo rcem en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi na l ju dg m en t i n t hi s C ou rt, wh ic h was de ni edon Marc h 3 , 20 10 . The Ci ty pur ch as edth e Defen da ntin a Bi ll of S al e ex ecu te d o n M arch 4, 2 01 0. Th is ti m el y ap pe al of b ot h t he di st ric t co urt’s p art ia l su m m ary jud gm en t an d fi na l ju dg m en t o rd ers fol lo wed . II. The st an da rdof r ev ie w fora di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i s well set tl ed . “ Thi s co urt re vi ews a di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t d e no vo , app lying th e sa m e le ga l s ta nd ard s u se d b y th e d is tri ctco urt.” Kru tz ig v. Pu lt e Hom e Co rp ., 60 2 F .3d12 31 , 12 34 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). “ Su m m ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te wher e, vi ewin g t he m ov an t’s ev id en ce an d a ll factua l i nf eren ces ari si ng fro m

itinth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on m ov in g p art y , th ere i s n o ge nu in e is su e o f an y

m at eri al fact , andth e m ov in g p art y is en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m atte r of

law.” Id .; s ee al so Cel ot ex Co rp v. Ca tre tt , 47 7 U.S. 3 17 , 32 2 (1 98 6) . 10As fo r th e d is tri ctco urt’s en try of fi na l ju dg m en t af te r a b en ch tri al , “ [w]e revi ew a di st ric t co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs when si tt in g wi th ou t a ju ry in adm ira lt y

un de r th e cl earl y erro ne ou s s ta nd ard . W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on s o f la w de no vo .” Sea B yte , Inc . v. Hu ds on Mari ne Mg m t. Se rv s., In c., 56 5 F .3d12 93 , 12 98 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (qu ot in g Ven us Lin es Agen cy , Inc . v. CVG In t’l Am ., Inc ., 23 4 F.3 d 1 22 5, 1 22 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) ). “ A fin di ng of f actis cle arl y

erro ne ou s wh en th e en ti ret y

of t he ev id en ce l ead s t he rev ie win g c ou rt t o ade fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th ata m is ta ke ha s b een co m m it te d.” Id. (quo ti ng Dres dn er Ba nkAG v. M /V Ol y

m pi a Voyage r, 44 6 F .3d13 77 , 13 80 (11 th Cir . 20 06 )). Loz m anfir stcla im s tha t t he di st ric t co urt i nc orrect ly con cl ud edonsu m m ary jud gm en t t ha t the Defen da ntwas a“ ve ss el ” subjec t t o fe de ral adm ira lty juri sd ic ti on . He furt he r sa y s t ha t t he City di d n otha ve a m ari ti m e li enbe cau se th e Defen da ntdi d n otowe t he Cit y m on ey fordo ck ag e, bu t ra th er the Cit y owed Loz m an . Lozm anals o a ss ert s t ha t t he Cit y im pr op erl y in st itut edth is adm ira lt y act io n i n re ta li at io n a ga in sthi m forth e ex erci se of h is Fir stAm en dm en t ri gh ts in op po si ng th e Ci ty’ s d ev el op m en t p lan fo r it s m ari na , andth atth e d is tri ctco urt erre d i n fi nd in g t ha t Lo zm anha d fa il edto est ab li sh su cha de fen se . Fin al ly, Loz m anarg ue s t ha t h is Marc h 2 00 7 s uc ces s i n re si st in g a n e vi ct io n a tt em ptby the Ci ty in s ta te co urt p recl ud es th e Ci ty, un de r th e d oc tri ne s o f jud ic ia l an d c ol la te ral 11es to pp el , fro m bri ng in g afed eral m ari ti m e cl ai m ag ai ns t h im

inMay 200 9, an d th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin de cl in in g t o app ly eith er es to pp el do ctrin e. W e co ns id er ea ch cla im

in tu rn . A. The Uni te d S ta te s C on st itut io n e xt en ds th e jud ic ia l p owe r of th e Uni te d St at es “ to all Cas es of a dm ira lt y or m ari ti m e Ju ris di ct io n.” U.S. Con st . art . III, § 2, cl . 1. Und er tha t cl au se , Con gr es s h as gra nt edfed eral di st ric t co urts ex cl us iv e or ig in al juri sd ic ti on ov er “ [a]ny ci vi l ca se of a dm ira lt y or m ari ti m e juri sd ic ti on .” 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 3( 1) . This is anin rem cas e ag ai ns t t he Defen da ntforth e m ari ti m e to rt o f tr es pa ss an d fo r th e en fo rcem en t o f a m ari ti m e li enforne ces sa rie s. A

“ m an da to ry

pre requi si te ” to th e d is tri ctco urt’s ad m ira lt y juri sd ic ti on ov er the Defen da nt , andto th e at ta ch m en t o f a m ari ti m e li en , is th atth e Defen da ntbe a

“ ve ss el ” und er fe de ral law. Cri m so n Yac ht s v . Bet ty L yn II Mo to r Yach t, 6 03 6 F.3 d 8 64 , 87 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) . W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on th atth e L ozman spends considera ble ink describing F lorida state law and the diff

ere nce unde r 6 Florida law betwe en a “ floatingresidential struc ture” and a “ vessel.” L ozman claims that the Def endant is a “ floatingresidential struc ture,” not a “ve ssel,” as the terms ar e def ined under Florida law. The se ar guments miss t he point. Fe dera l law g overns the e x istence of admiralty jurisdiction, and the term “ vessel” is spec ifically define d in the United States Code. Acc ording ly , for pur

poses of fe dera l admiralty jurisdiction, any

differ ence s amongthe def initions of vesse l under the la

ws of various states or betwe en state a nd fede ral lawmust yield to the fede ral de finition and the requir ed uniformity of fe dera l maritime law. See Stewa rt v. Dutra Constr. Co., 543 U.S. 481, 490 (2005) (“[1 U.S.C.] § 3 continues to supply the def ault definition of ‘ve ssel’ throughout the U.S. Code . . . .”); S. Pac. Co. v. J ensen, 244 U .S. 205, 215-16 (1917). 12Defen da ntwas a“ ve ss el ” d e n ov o. Bu ng e Co rp . v. Fre ep ort M ari ne Rep ai r, In c.,

24 0 F .3d91 9, 9 22 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). The de te rm in at io n o f whe th er the Defen da ntis a “ ve ss el ” is di ct at edby bi nd in g p rece de nt . Bot h t hi s C ou rt a ndth e fo rm er Fi fth Cir cu itinbi nd in g pr eced en t h av e em

pl oyed a b ro adde fin it io n o f ve ss el pu rs uantto 1 U.S.C. § 3. Sect io n 3 pro vi de s, i n fu ll : “ The word‘ ve ss el ’ in cl ud es ev ery de sc rip ti on of wate rcra ft o r ot he r art ifi ci al co nt riv an ce u se d, o r cap ab le of b ei ng us ed , as am ean s of tra ns po rta ti onon wate r.” 1 U.S.C. § 3 (em ph as is ad de d) . W e h av e un am bi gu ou sl y sai d t ha t t he pri m ary in qu iry in d et erm in in g wh ethe r a cra ft i s a ve ss el is whet he r th e cra ft wa s “ ren de redpra ct ic al ly inc ap ab le of t ran sp orta ti on or m ov em en t.” Bd . of C omm ’rs of th e Orl ean s Lev ee Di st . v. M/ V Bel le of Orl ean s, 53 5 F .3d12 99 , 13 12 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ti ng Ste wart , 54 3 U.S. at49 4) . In s o do in g, we h av e ech oe d t he Supr em e Co urt’s p ro no un cem en t i n S te wart , 54 3 U.S. 48 1, t ha t the de te rm in at io n o f whe th er a cr aftis a “ ve ss el ” fo cu se s o n “ whe th er the wate rcra ft’s u se ‘ as a m ean s o f tr an sp orta ti on onwate r’ is a p ract ic al po ss ib il it y or m erel y a th eo ret ic al on e.” Id . at 4 96 . W e th eref or e lo okat the cap ab il it y

of t he craf t, “ no t i ts pre se ntus e o r st at io n.” Bel le of Orl ean s, 5 35 F.3dat 1 31 0. Ourcas es pro vi de furth er co nt ex t fo r th is bro adde fin it io n. In Ple as on v. Gul fp ort Sh ip bu il di ng Co rp ., 22 1 F .2d62 1 (5 th Cir . 19 55 ), th e Car ol Ann , a 13sa lv ag e an d re pa ir v es se l b ui ltforth e Nav y , hadbe ende cl aredsu rp lu s an d was

subs eque nt ly sol d a ndre-s ol d t o p riv at e p art ie s. Id . at 6 22 . One o f th e v es se l’s own ers de ci de d t o s crap th e v es se l, an d a t t he ti m e th e v es se l was bro ug htin for cert ai n re pa irs , sh e was in th e fo ll owi ng co nd it io n: “ he r pr op el le rs an d p ro pe ll er sh aft s h adbe enrem ov ed ; s he ha d n o c rew; no ne of h er m ach in ery was in op erat io n; sh e h adno li gh t, h eat , or p owe r in op erat io n; he r m ai n e ng in es ha d b een co m pl et el y rem ov ed ; al l o f he r st eeri ng ap pa ratus , with t he ex cep ti on of t he ru dd er, h adbe enrem ov edan d s ol d; he r supe rs tru ctur e an d m as ts were i nt act ; h er na vi ga ti on li gh ts were i n p la ce, tho ug h n otop erab le ; [a nd ] he r co m pa rtmenta ti on , in cl ud in g c arg o h ol ds , was i nt act .” Id . at 6 22 -2 3. Aft er the se rep ai rs were pe rfo rm ed , th e Car ol Ann was m oo redto a do ckby cabl es , andsh e rec ei ve d te le ph on e an d e le ctric al servi ce t hr ou gh co nn ect io ns to so ur ces on lan d. Id . at 62 3. Al th ou gh th e Car ol Ann was a lm os t co m pl et el y gu tt ed , exc ep t fo r he r supe rs tru ctur e, th e fo rm er Fi fth Cir cu it he ldth atsh e was a ve ss el . Id. The Co urt, 7 as itha d d on e in th e p as t, “ saw fitto em ph as iz e th e wor ds ‘ cap ab le of b ei ng us ed ’ in di sc us si ng Sect io n 3 of Ti tl e 1 .” Id . The Ca ro l An n was afl oa t an d c ap ab le of be in g t owe d, h ada de ck , cab in s, an d s up ers tru ctur e, an d t he refo re “ was cap ab le of

In Bonne r v. City

of Pritchar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 7 adopted a s binding pre cede nt all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of busine ss on September 30, 1981. 14be in g u se d a s a m ean s o f tr an sp orta ti on un de r to w” de sp it e h av in g “ no st eeri ng

m ech an is m ” an d “ no m ot iv e p owe r of it s o wn.” Id . The cas e o f Mi am i Ri ve r Bo atYard , Inc . v. 6 0’ Hou se bo at , Seri al No. SC40 -2 86 0- 3- 62 , 39 0 F .2d59 6 (5 th Cir . 19 68 ) is equa ll y in stru ct iv e. Ther e, a p an el of th e fo rm er Fi fth Cir cu itco nc lu de d t ha t a h ou se bo atwith n o m ot iv e p owe r of he r own th atwas u se d a s a r es id en ce i n am ari nawas s ti ll a ve ss el . Id. at59 7. Th e un di sp ut edfact s s ho wedth atth e d efen da ntho us eb oa t h ad“ m ad e th e rat he r co ns id erab le m ari ti m e v oyage t o l ib el an t’s s hi pyard i n M ia m i . . . with t he ex pe ct at io n tha t s he wou ldbe to wedaway .” Id . The Co urt n ot edth ata ho us eb oa t

“ affo rd s a wa te r-b orne pl ace t o l iv e wit h the ad de d a dv an ta ge of a t l eas t s om e m ari ti m e m ob il it y .” Id . Accor di ng ly, “ [t]ha t s he ha s n o m ot iv e p owe r an d m us t, as wou ldth e m os t l owl y

of dum b b arg es , be t owe d d oe s n otde pr iv e h er o f th e st atus of ave ss el .” Id . Mo re re cen tl y , in20 08 , we hadoc cas io n i n B el le of Orl ean s t o c on si de r whe th er a ri ve rb oa t ca si no th atwas m oo redto a do ckby stee l cabl es an d h ad el ect ric al , com

pu te r, an d p ho ne cab le s at ta ch edto a sh or e si de so ur ce was a ve ss el . 53 5 F .3dat 1 30 4. We hel d t ha t i t was . A pan el of t hi s C ou rt r eaff irmed th at Pl eas on was s ti ll go odlaw an d t ha t i t “ ad dr es se d p reci se ly the leg al is su e we fac e in th e in st an t ca se .” Id . at 1 30 6. We als o fo un d t he riv erb oa t atis su e to be 15factua ll y

in di st in gu is habl e fro m

th e v es se l i n P le as on , with t he ex cep ti onth atth e riv erb oa t h ada worki ng en gi ne an d o th er m ach in ery an d t he refo re m ot iv e p owe r of it s o wn. Id . at 1 30 7. Th atdi st in ct io n, o f co ur se , ledus furth er t owa rdth e co nc lu si on th atth e ri ve rb oa t was cap ab le of m ari ti m e tr an sp ort an d was , th eref or e, a v es se l, b utwe di d n otde pa rt f ro m th e Pl eas on an al y si s. Id . W e d is ti ng ui sh edbo th leg al ly andfactua ll y th e Fi fth Cir cu it ’s op in io n i n Pav on e v . Mis si ss ip pi Riv erb oa t Am us em en t Co rp ., 52 F.3d56 0 (5 th Cir . 19 95 ), on whi ch Lozm anno w rel ie s, wh ere t he co urt h el d t ha t a f lo at in g c as in o t ha t was se m i-p erm an en tl y

an d i nd efi ni te ly m oo redto th e sh or e was no t a v es se l b ecau se it was “ rem ov edfro m

na vi ga ti on ” an d “ was co ns tru ct edto be us edpri m ari ly as a work p la tfo rm .” Id . at 5 70 . W e reject edth e rea so ni ng of t he Fif th an d S ev en th 8 Ci rcu it s, b oth o f whi ch “ fo cu s o n t he in te ntof t he sh ip own er ra th er tha n wh ethe r th e b oa t h as be en‘ ren de redpra ct ic al ly inc ap ab le of t ran sp orta ti onor m ov em en t.’” Bel le of Orl ean s, 5 35 F.3dat 1 31 1 (q uo ti ng Ste wart , 54 3 U.S. at49 4) . Agai n we ob se rv edth at“ [t]he own er’s i nt en ti on s wi th reg ardto a bo atare an al og ou s t o t he bo at ’s ‘ pu rp os e,’ andSte wartcle arl y reject edan y

de fin it io n o f ‘ves se l’ th atrel ie s on su ch a pu rp os e.” Id . at 1 31 1 (c it in g S te wart , 54 3 U.S. at49 7 (“ Und er [1 U.S.C.] § 3 , a ‘ ve ss el ’ is an y wate rcra ft p ract ic al ly capab le of m ari ti m e See Ta g liere v. H arr ah’s I ll. Corp., 445 F.3d 1012 (7th Cir. 2006). 8 16tra ns po rta ti on , reg ard le ss of i ts pri m ary pu rp os e . . . .”) (foo tn ot e o m it te d) ).

Mo reo ve r, we no te d tha t “ su ch a te stis in co m pa ti bl e wit h t he Supr em e Co urt’s fo cu s o n p ro vi di ng un ifo rm it y withi n a dm ira lty

juri sd ic ti on ,” id . (ci ti ng Doe v . Cel eb rit y Cru is es , Inc ., 39 4 F .3d89 1, 9 02 (11 th Cir . 20 04 )), b ecau se “ st at e la w can ch an ge ” an d “ anown er’s i nt en ti on s m ay ch an ge in way s n ev er an ti ci pa te d,” id . at 1 31 1- 12 . A pan el of t hi s C ou rt r ei te rat edth e an al y si s emplo y edin Bel le of Orl ean s an d t he en du rin g v it al it y

of P le as on an d 6 0’ Hou se bo atst il l ag ai n i n C rimson Yach ts , 60 3 F .3d86 4. Aft er re vi ewin g t he pu rp os e an d h is to ry of m ari ti m e li en s an d p rio r pr eced en t i nt erp ret in g t he term “ ve ss el ,” th e Co urt n ot edth ata “ cas e-b y cas e ap pr oa ch is oft enne ces sa ry to de te rm in e whe th er ad m ira lty juri sd ic ti on ap pl ie s t o n ov el or u nu su al si tu at io ns .” Id . at 8 75 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . W e u lt im at el y

he ldth atth e Bet ty L yn II , a y ach t t ha t h adbe en dry do ck ed , rem ov edfro m th e wat er wi th cran es , andtem po rari ly dis ab le d fo r ex te ns iv e rep ai rs , was s ti ll a ve ss el . Id. We sta te d tha t “ [t]he BETTY LY N II ne edm erel y

be cap ab le of t ran sp orta ti on on wate r to be a ve ss el . The l aw do es no t requi re tha t s he be ab le to sel f-p ro pe l.” Id . (ci ti ng Bel le of Orl ean s, 5 35 F.3dat 13 07 ; 6 0’ Hou se bo at , 39 0 F .2dat 5 97 ). Altho ug h t he y ach t was on dry lan d fo r

17rep ai rs , itret ai ne d t he st atus of v es se l b ecau se itst il l “ co ul d b e to wedup on24

ho ur s n ot ic e.” Id . Loz m an ’s effo rts to di st in gu is h P le as on an d t he li ne of p rece de ntth at fo ll owe d a re u na va il in g. As id e fro m hi s d is cu ss io n o f Fl or id a la w, whi ch is of n o m om en t i n d efi ni ng th e te rm “ ve ss el ” fo r pu rp os es of f ed eral adm ira lt y juri sd ic ti on , Lozm anrai se s t hr ee s om ewh atin te rrel at edarg um en ts in aneffo rt t o av oi d c on tro ll in g p rece de nt . Firs t, h e arg ue s t ha t t he Defen da ntwas n ot pr act ic al ly capab le of t ran sp orta ti on ov er wat er, ev enby tow. The reco rddi sp ut es Loz m an ’s cha ract eri zat io n. Th e Defen dantin th is cas e is vi rtu al ly in di st in gu is habl e fro m

th e v es se ls in th e afo rem en ti on edcas es in term s o f it s cap aci ty for m ari ti m e tr an sp ort. Lik e th e v es se l i n P le as on , th e Defen dantwas m oo redto a do ckby cabl es , recei ve d p owe r fro m lan d, an d h adno m ot iv e p owe r orst eeri ng of i ts own . Mor eo ve r, th e Defen da ntwas t owe d s ev eral ti m es ov er co ns id erab le di st an ces : fi rs t, fro m th e p la ce o f pu rch as e n ear F ort M y ers to Nort h Bay V il la ge ; n ex t, am on g s ev eral m ari na s i n No rth Bay Vil la ge ; t he n, fr om Nort h Bay V il la ge do wn t o t he Cit y ; an d fi na ll y , aft er i ts arre st , fro m th e Ci ty to M ia m i. Loz m ancla im s, n ev ert he le ss , witho utan y ev id en ti ary supp ort i n t he reco rd , th ateach of t he th ree t im es th e Defen da ntwas m ov edov er 2 50 feetitsu st ai ne d se rio us da m ag e an d t ha t i t wo ul d h av e su nktwo ou t o f th e th ree t im es if 18imm ed ia te un de rwat er re pa irs ha d n otbe enpe rfo rm ed . Butab se nta sh redof

ev id en ce, an d i n l ig htof t he co nt rad ic to ry ev id en ce o f th e actua l v oyages m ad e b y th e Defen da ntun de r to w, th is ass ert io n a lo ne can no t p recl ud e a d et erm in at io n t ha t th e Defen da ntwas p ract ic al ly capab le of m ari ti m e tr an sp orta ti on . In ad di ti on , as th e d is tri ctco urt re co gn iz ed , inBel le of Orl ean s, t he cla im an t ra is eda si m il ar co nc ernth atm ov in g t he ve ss el wou ldda m ag e it , andwe st at edth at“ th e BELLE OF ORLEANS was capabl e o f m ov in g o ve r wat er, al be itto he r de tri m en t, an d was cap ab le of b ei ng tra ns po rte d u nd er t ow. As s uc h, we h ol d t ha t t he BELLE OF ORLEANS is a ‘ves se l’ forpu rp os es of a dm ira lt y juri sd ic ti on .” 53 5 F .3dat 1 31 2 (em ph as is ad de d) . Seco nd , Lozm anarg ue s, ag ai n wi th ou t an y reco rdsupp ort, tha t t he Defen da ntwas c on st ru ct edus in g m etho ds an d m at eri al s ap pr op ria te forho us es on la ndan d, ac co rd in gl y , th atth e Defen da ntis no t a v es se l. Thu s, Lo zm anass ert s th atth e Defen da ntis a “ flo at in g s ha ck , bu il t o utof p lywoodwith o nl y 1/ 16 ” o f fib erg la ss su rro un di ng it s u nr ak edhu ll , witho utpro pe r cl eat s fo r to win g, no bi lg e 9 pu m ps , no na vi ga ti on aid s, n o l ife bo at s an d o th er l ife sa vi ng equi pm en t, n o

L ozman’s own brief a

nd the evidenc e pre sented at trial appea r to contra dict this point . 9 Be fore he eve n arrived in the City , and thus befor e the attachment of a maritime lien and the district court’s e x erc ise of its admiralty jurisdiction over the De fenda nt, L ozman had a repa irperson f

it the Defe ndant with four towingbitts prior to it s approximately -seve nty mile tow from Nor th Ba y Villag e to the City

marina. 19pr op ul si on , [an d] no st eeri ng .” Iness en ce, Lo zm ancla im s t ha t the Defen dant

“ was de si gn edas ares id en ce tha t ju sthapp en edto flo at .” Bu t t he Defen da nt ’s de si gn , ho wev er u nu su al or u no rth od ox , is of l it tl e m om en t. We clearly sta te d i n Bel le of Orl ean s t ha t t he st atus of “ ve ss el ” d oe s n otde pe ndin an y way on eit he r th e p ur po se forwhi ch th e cra ft wa s co ns tru ct edor i ts in te nd edus e. 53 5 F .3dat 13 11 . Loz m anals o u se s t he se cla im s ab ou t t he Defen da nt ’s con st ru ct io n t o a ga in su gg es t t ha t t he Defen da ntwas n otpra ct ic al ly capab le of m ov in g o ve r wat er, ev en by tow. Bu t t ha t ar gu m en t, t oo , is co nt rad ic te d b y th e rec or d. Th e fac t t ha t t he Defen da ntwas a n u nu su al ly des ig ne d c raftis rel ev an t o nl y to th e ex te ntth atth e de si gn pre ve nt s i t fr om

ha vi ng an y

pra ct ic al cap aci ty for tran sp orta ti on ov er wat er, an d t he reco rdis cle ar tha t t he Defen da ntha d t hi s p ract ic al cap aci ty. See Bu rk s v . Am . Riv er Tran sp . Co., 6 79 F.2d69 , 75 (5t h C ir. Un itA 19 82 ) (“ No d oubtth e th ree m enin a tub wo ul d a ls o fi t wi th in ou r de fin it io n [o f “ ve ss el ”], andon e pr ob ab ly cou ldm ak e a co nv in ci ng cas e fo r Jo na h i ns id e th e wha le .”); McC art hy v. The BarkPek in g, 7 16 F.2d13 0, 1 34 (2dCir . 19 83 ) (“ [V]irtu al ly any cap aci ty for us e as sea go in g t ran sp orta ti on -- p erh ap s ev enth e h y po th et ic al ly plaus ib le po ss ib il it y

ha s s uf fic edto len d t he di gn it y

of ‘ve ss el ’ st atus to a ho stof s eem in gl y un li ke ly craft.” ). 20Fi na ll y , Lozm anarg ue s t ha t t he Defen dantdi d n otha ve a Hul l Id en ti fic at io n

Num be r (“ HIN”) an d c ou ldno t o bt ai n C oa stGuar d c ert ifi cat io n, b ot h o f whi ch are requi redforleg al na vi gabi li ty, an d t ha t t he refo re i t ca nn otbe co ns id ereda ve ss el . Thi s ar gu m en t m is ap pr eh en ds th e rel ev an t i nq ui ry . As we rec og ni zedin Bel le of Orle an s, l eg al navi gabi li ty is n otth e te stforve ss el st atus . 53 5 F .3dat 1 31 1- 12 (“ [I]f leg al navi gabi li ty is t he tes t fo r ve ss el st atus , any shi p wi th anex pi redCo as t Gua rdcert ifi cat io n b eco m es a no n- ve ss el . . . . Suc h ares ul t i s cl earl y no t wh at th e Supr em e Co urt i nt en de d [i n S te wart ]. ”). Loz m ancla im s t he Defen dantis di st in gu is habl e fro m

th e h y po th et ic al ve ss el in Bel le of Orl ean s b ecau se th e Defen da ntco ul d n ev er o bt ai n aCo as t Gu ardcert ifi cat io n i n t he fir stpl ace. Bu t i n di st in gu is hi ng th is Co urt’s h y po th et ic al il lu st rat io n o f a p rin ci pl e, he fai ls to di sp ut e -- n orco ul d h e d is pu te -- th e p rin ci pl e it se lf; na m el y , th atwe do no t co ns id er l eg al navi gabi li ty at al l i n d et erm in in g wh ethe r a cra ft i s a v es se l, b ut rat he r on ly the craf

t’s p ract ic al cap aci ty for m ari ti m e tr an sp ort. Insh ort, b as edon lo ng pre ced en t, the Defen dantis a “ ve ss el ” u nd er 1 U.S.C. § 3 . Like th e v es se ls in Ple as on an d 6 0’ Hou se bo at , th e Defen da ntwas pr act ic al ly capab le of t ran sp orta ti on ov er wat er b y m ean s o f a t ow, d es pi te ha vi ng no m ot iv e o r st eeri ng po wer o f it s o wn. The di st ric t co urt d idno t err in co nc lu di ng th atitha d fe de ral adm ira lt y juri sd ic ti onov er the Defen da nt . 21B.

Und er 4 6 U.S.C. § 31 34 2, a “ pe rs onpro vi di ng ne ces sa rie s t o ave ss el ” h as a m ari ti m e li enon th e v es se l t ha t m ay be en fo rcedby m ean s o f anin rem civ il act io n a ga in stth e v es se l. 4 6 U.S.C. § 31 34 2( a). W e h av e h el d tha t d oc ka ge , whi chwas u nd is pu te dl y

pro vi de d b y

th e Ci ty m ari nato th e Defen da nt , con st itut es

“ ne ces sa rie s” forpu rp os es of m ari ti m e la w. Bell e o f Orle an s, 5 35 F.3dat 1 31 4 (ci ti ng Inb es a Am ., Inc . v. M/ V Ang li a, 13 4 F .3d10 35 , 10 37 -3 8 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) ). Loz m ando es no t d is pu te th e le ga l s ta nd ardfora m ari ti m e li en , bu t ra th er arg ue s t ha t t he Cit y

ha s fa il edto pro ve th ata m ari ti m e li enaccrue d i n t hi s ca se be cau se he all eg ed ly didno t o we an y m on ey to th e m ari na . The p ro pe r ba lanc e o f Loz m an ’s do ck ag e acc ou ntwith t he m ari nais a qu es ti on of f actan d was th e pr im ary is su e in th e two -d ay be nc h t ria l b efo re the di stric t co urt. Acco rd in gl y , we rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l d et erm in at io ns for cle ar erro r. My ers v. Ce nt . Fl a. In vs ., Inc ., 59 2 F .3d12 01 , 12 11 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). A “ co urt wi ll no t d is tu rb a di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in gs of f actun de r th e cl earl y

erro ne ou s s ta nd ardun le ss itis lef t ‘w it h the de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th ata m is ta ke ha s b een m ad e’ afterm ak in g al l cr ed ib il it y

ch oi ces in fav orof t he fact -fi nd er’s ch oi ce, i n l ig htof t he reco rdas a who le .” Mee k v . Met ro . Dade Cn ty., 98 5 F .2d14 71 , 14 81 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ), ab ro ga te d o n o th er g ro un ds by D il la rdv. Ch il to n C nty . Comm ’n, 49 5 F .3d13 24 22(1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) (pe r curia m) (quo ti ng Mad do x v . Cla yto r, 76 4 F .2d15 39 , 15 45

(1 1t h C ir. 1 98 5) ). An ap pe ll at e co urt m ay no t re ve rs e a d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in g t ha t is pl au si bl e in li gh t o f th e en ti re re co rdev enif “ co nv in cedth atha d i t b eensi tt in g as th e tr ie r of

fact , itwou ldha ve weig he d t he ev id en ce d iff eren tl y .” And ers on v. Ci ty of Bes se m er Ci ty, 47 0 U.S. 5 64 , 57 4 (1 98 5) . Bas edpri m ari ly on t he m ari na ’s reco rd s an d t he in -co urt t es ti m on y of m ari nadi rect orEdwi n Leg ue , for en si c acc ou nt an t Gl en n Tro as t, an d Lo zm an hi m se lf, t he di st ric t co urt fo un d tha t Lo zm anowedth e m ari na“ $8 05 .78 forunpa id do ck ag e” an d “ $6 08 .60 forunpa idlat e fee s” as o f Mar ch 31 , 20 09 , and“ $1 62 4.5 0 in do ck ag e atth e tr an si en t ra te for [th e] peri odfro m

Apri l 2 , 20 09 to Apri l 2 0, 20 09 , in cl us iv e,” fo r a t ot al of $ 3,0 38 .88 . Loz m anm ak es sev eral arg um en ts in res po ns e, al l o f whi ch in vi te us to reco ns id er the well -g ro un de d fa ctua l fi nd in gs of the di st ric t co urt. Fi rs t, Lo zm an cl ai m s t ha t o ne of h is ch eck s was no t p ro pe rly cred it edto hi s ac co un t. Sec on d, Loz m anass ert s t ha t h e was erro ne ou sl y ch arg edlat e fee s. Th ird , Lozm an co nt en ds th athe is en ti tl edto a pr or at eddo ck ag e fee forth e m on th of M arch 20 06 , be cau se he pa idfor

th e fu ll m on th bu t d idno t d oc k t he Defen da ntat t he m ari na un ti l o n o r aro un d M arch 17 . Fin al ly, Loz m ancla im s t ha t t he m ari naowes hi m a

23cred itforfif te enm on th s o f sp ot ty or no n- ex is te ntele ctric al servi ce. We con si de r each cla im

intu rn . Fi rs t, Lo zm ansays th athi s Se pt em be r 20 08 do ck ag e fee ch eck , #1 15 7, was cas he d b y th e Ci ty butwas n otpro pe rly cred it edto hi s ac co un t. As e vi de nc e, Loz m ancla im s t ha t h is m ari nabi ll in g s ta te m en t d at edApri l 1 , 20 09 , di d n otsh ow a cre di t fo r th is ch eck . Butth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t re ly on the Apri l 1 , 20 09 bi ll in g s ta te m en t i n c om

pu ti ng th e am ou ntowed . Ins te ad , th e ev id en ce upo n whi chth e d is tri ctco urt re li edwas t he m ari na ’s led ge r car d fo r Loz m an ’s acco un t, an d t he tes ti m on y

of the City ’s for en si c acc ou nt an t, Gl en n Tro as t, wh ic h was ba se d o n arev ie w of t ha t l ed ge r. Andth e le dg er h as anen try for t he am ou ntof ch eck#1 15 7 o n t he da te itwas s en t, Se pt em be r 9, 2 00 8. Th e d is tri ctco urt th eref or e fo un d tha t ch eck#1 15 7, i n a dd it io n t o t he ot he r ch eck s Lo zm ancla im ed were n otpro pe rly cred it edto hi s ac co un t, were pro pe rly acco un te d fo r inth e le dg er. Loz m anfurth er cl ai m s t ha t t he m ari naacco un ti ng st aff i nt en ti on al ly hel d th ree o f hi s ch eck s fo r up to th ree m on th s b efo re d ep os it in g t he m . Pres um ab ly, Loz m anis su gg es ti ng th atth e Ci ty’ s ac ti on s l edhi m to un fai rly inc urlat e fee s. At tri al , ho wev er, fo ren si c acc ou nt an t Tro as t t es ti fie d t ha t Lo zm anwas c red it edfor an y lat e fee s t ha t wer e as se ss edag ai ns t h im whi le th os e ch eck s wer e b ei ng he ld . 24In de ed , th e le dg er s ho ws t ha t, o n J ul y 9, 2 00 8, s ho rtl y

aft er the Cit y

de po si te d t he th ree c he ck s i n que st io n, Lo zm an ’s acco un t was cred it ed$4 73 .11 forpa stlat e fees . At al l ev en ts , we canfin d n o c le ar erro r inth e d is tri ctco urt’s fa ct fin di ng . 1 0 Loz m an ’s nex t cl ai m

is th athe is en ti tl edto a pr or at eddo ck ag e fee for Mar ch20 06 , hi s fi rs t m on th at t he m ari na . It i s u nd is pu te d t ha t Lo zm anpa idth e m on th ly fee in ful l an d tha t h e arr iv edat t he m ari naon or a ro un d M arch 17 , 20 06 . Bu t t ho se two un di sp ut edfact s al on e d o n otlea d t o t he co nc lu si on th atLozm an was en ti tl edto pa y

a pr or at eddo ck ag e fee . Nothi ng in th e Agr eem en t i ts el f ad dr es se s t he is su e o f pr or at edm on th ly paym en ts , andno th in g i n t he reco rd su gg es ts th atLozm anev er d em an de d acred itor p ro rat io n o f hi s M arch 20 06 pa ym en t b efo re thi s ca se be ga n. With ou t m or e, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t co m m it cl ear e rro r by decl in in g t o fi ndth atth e Ci ty owedLozm ana pr or at edpo rti on of hi s M arch 20 06 do ck ag e fee . Fi na ll y , Lozm anass ert s t ha t h e was owed“ 15 m on th s el ect ric , $7 50 .00 , for on e o ut le t h e p ai d fo r th atne ve r worke d a ndth athe di d n otus e.” Alt ho ug h Loz m ancla im s t ha t h is ele ctric it y di d n otworkfortwo y ears , th e rec or d l ack s an y

L ozman also rece ived substantial cre dits on other occa sions. Thus, for example, the 1 0 fore nsic ac countant testified at trial that, in August 2007, the marina f org ave a full month of unpaid docka g e fe es for

J uly 2007, eff ectively cre diting L ozman’s acc ount the unpaid amount. 25ev id en ce -- no t ev ena si ng le ele ctric al bi ll -- to supp ort t hi s cl ai m . In ad di ti on , it

is un di sp ut edth atth e Ci ty credi te d Lo zm an$4 50 forni ne m on th s o f el ect ric al se rv ic e o n J ul y

9, 2 00 8, b ecau se of a ll eg edservi ce i nt errupt io ns . At the en d o f th e d ay , no th in g i n t he reco rdin di cat es th atwe m ay sec on dgu es s the di st ric t co urt’s wei gh in g o f th e ev id en ce. We are no t p ers ua de d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredin it s fa ct fin di ng , andne it he r are we lef t, the refo re, “ wit h t he de fin it e an d fi rm

co nv ic ti on th ata m is ta ke ha s b een m ad e.” Mad do x, 7 64 F.2dat 15 45 . The d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs reg ard in g t he am ou ntLozm anowed un de r th e Ci ty’ s m ari ti m e li enforne ces sa rie s wer e n otcle arl y erro ne ou s. C. Loz m ancla im s n ex t tha t the Cit y ’s fed eral adm ira lt y co m pl ai ntag ai ns t t he Defen da nt“ was si m

pl y pa rt o f anon go in g re ta li at io n b y th e CITY ag ai ns t LOZMAN for h is su cces s (wi th th e supp ort o f th enGov ern orBu sh an d t he n Att orne y Gene ral Cri st ) in st op pi ng th e CITY fro m us in g e m in en t d om ai n t o t ak e th ou sa nd s o f ho m es an d b us in es se s, al on g wi th th e CITY m ari na , to be gi ve n t o a pr iv at e d ev el op er i n a2.4 bi ll io n d ol la r red ev el op m en t d eal ,” as well as f orhi s su cces s i n t he st at e co urt ev ic ti on cas e. Inord er t o s uc ces sf

ul ly adv an ce a Fi rs t Am en dm en t re ta li at io n d efen se , Loz m anm

us t s ho w (1) th athi s co nduc t was co ns ti tu ti on al ly pro te ct ed ; an d (2 ) th at 26hi s co nduc t “ was a subs tant ia l o r m ot iv at in g fa ct orin ” th e Ci ty’ s d eci si on to arre st

th e Defen da nt . Cub anMu se um of Art s & Cu ltur e, In c. v. Ci ty of Mi am i, 7 66 F. Supp . 11 21 , 11 25 (S.D. Fla . 19 91 ) (ci ti ng Mt . Healt hy City Sch . Dis t. Bd . of Educ . v. Do y le , 42 9 U.S. 2 74 , 28 7 (1 97 7) ); s ee al so Gatt is v. Br ic e, 13 6 F .3d72 4, 7 26 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) (“ To s uc ceedin a se ct io n 1 98 3 s ui t b as edon a cl ai m of r et al ia ti on fo r sp eech , th e p la in ti ff m us t s ho w th athi s s pe ech was asubs ta nt ia l o r m ot iv at in g fact or in th e al le ge dl y

ret al ia to ry

de ci si on .” (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). If Loz m anm ak es th is sh owi ng , th e b ur de n t he n s hi fts to th e Ci ty to s ho w “by a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce” t ha t t he act io n a ga in stth e Defen da ntwou ldha ve oc cu rred“ ev enin th e ab se nc e o f th e p ro te ct edco nduc t.” M t. Heal th y , 42 9 U.S. at 28 7; see als o C ub anMu se um , 76 6 F . Sup p. at11 25 . The di stric t co urt co nc lu de d o n s umm ary jud gm en t tha t Lo zm anha d fa il ed to sh ow t ha t h is 20 06 op po si ti on to th e m ari nared ev el op m en t p la n was a subs ta nt ia l o r m ot iv at in g fa ct orin th e Ci ty’ s d eci si on to bri ng th is cas e. The co urt, the refo re, d idno t re ach th e que st io n o f whe th er Lo zm an ’s con du ctwas co ns ti tu ti on al ly pro te ct edor wh ethe r th e Ci ty cou ldsh ow b y a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce t ha t t he arre stof t he Defen da ntwou ldha ve oc cu rredev eninth e ab se nc e o f Loz m an ’s con du ct . The d is tri ctco urt n ot edth at , whi le th e ti m in g o f th e Ci ty reso lu ti on m an da ti ng co m pl ia nc e wit h re vi se d m ari narul es an d 27reg ul at io ns -- whi ch oc cu rredth ree m on th s af te r Loz m an ’s vi ct ory

in th e st at e co urt ev ic ti on cas e -- was “ en ou gh to rai se ey eb ro ws,” i t was st il l n oten ou gh , ab se ntan y

firm ev id en ce, t o s ho w th atLozm an ’s sp eech was asubs ta nt ia l o r m ot iv at in g fa ct orin th e Ci ty’ s d eci si on to im pl em en t t ho se rul es an d t o arres t t he Defen da nt . The d is tri ctco urt fu rth er fo un d tha t t he ev id en ce s ub m it te d b y Loz m an-- m

uc h o f whi chwas i na dm is si bl e, an d wh ic h c on si st edpri m ari ly of (1 ) th e m in ut es fro m

a Ci ty Cou nc il m eet in g h el d app ro xi m at el y on e y ear b efo re the de ci si on to ch an ge th e ru le s was m ad e, an d (2 ) ne wsp ap er arti cl es ass ert in g t ha t th e ru le s ch an ge s wer e eff ectua te d a s a p ers on al ve nd et taag ai ns t Lo zm an-- su gg es te d a t m os t anon go in g fe udbe twee n Lo zm anan d t he Cit y , bu t d id“ no t es tabl is h aco nn ect io n b etween Mr. Loz m an ’s pro te ct edco nduc t an d t he sp eci fic act io n a t i ss ue he re: th e ch an gi ng of t he m ari narul es an d t he ir e nf or cem en t ag ai ns t th e Defen da ntve ss el .” The di stric t co urt’s co nc lu si on s wer e so un d. Onap pe al , Lozm anarg ue s t ha t wha t “ is en ou gh to rai se ey eb ro ws” -- h ere, t he ti m in g o f th e ru le s ch an ge s -- is ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce s uf fic ie ntto pre cl ud e su m

m ary jud gm en t. We are un pe rs ua de d. Itis cert ai nl y tru e th at“ [w]here t he cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce an d reas on ab le in fere nc es drawn the refr om crea te a ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al factfor tri al , su m m ary jud gm en t i s i m

pr op er.” Ch ap m anv. Am . Cy an am idCo rp ., 86 1

28F.2 d 1 51 5, 1 51 8- 19 (11 thCir . 19 88 ). “ Howev er, an in fere nc e b as edon

sp ecu la ti on an d c on

jectu re i s n otreas on ab le .” Id . at 1 51 8. As no te d b y th e Ci ty,

“ ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce m us t d o m or e th ansi m

pl y ‘ rai se so m e eyebro ws’; i t m us t be su ffi ci en t t o ra is e a jury qu es ti on .” Lozm anha s p res en te d n o e vi de nc e in th e reco rdto supp ort h is ret al ia ti on cla im s b ey on d t he ti m in g o f th e ru le s ch an ge s. Andth atti m in g i s h ard ly eno ug h t o ra is e a g en ui ne is su e o f m at eri al fact . In de ed , th e ev id en ce tha t i s i n t he reco rdov erwh el m in gl y co ntrad ic ts Loz m an ’s cla im s. To be gi n wi th , th e n ew m ari narul es di d n otap pl y so le ly to t he Defen da nt . Rath er, the Defen da ntwas o ne of s ev en te enve ss el s t ha t wer e n otin co m pl ianc e wit h t he ne w rul es , and , on Apri l 1 , 20 09 , was t he on ly non -co m pl ia nt ve ss el rem ai ni ng at t he m ari na . Thu s, t he re i s n o e vi de nc e to su gg es t t ha t t he Defen da ntwas s pe ci fic al ly targ et ed . The Ci ty’ s s ta te d g oa ls be hi ndth e rev is io ns to th e m ari narul es were “ to be co m e m or e fu ll y co m pl ia ntwith s ta te an d fe de ral la ws an d t o b et te r in su la te th e Ci ty from fin an ci al lo ss an d l iabi li ty exp os ur e.” Loz m anm ars ha ls no ev id en ce t o d is pu te an y of t hi s. Perh ap s m os t s ig ni fic an tl y , th e cau sa l l in k b etween th e Ma rch 2, 2 00 7 s ta te co urt ev ic ti on ve rd ic t i n Lo zm an ’s fav or an d t he Ju ne 20 , 20 07 rul es ch an ge s i s hi gh ly atte nu at ed , if n otwho ll y im pl au si bl e. Not ab ly, be twee n t ho se two ev en ts th ere was a ne w Cit y

Co un ci l el ect io n, wh ic h c om pl et el y ch an ge d t he co m

po si ti on 29of

th e Ci ty Cou nc il . As Loz m anhi m se lf t es ti fie d a t t he be nc h t ria l: “ [T]he el ect io ns in Riv ie ra Be ach are i n M arch . So t he Marc h, 2 00 7, el ect io n a ll ne w pe op le cam e in . Andth e fee li ng aro un d t own was t he y cam e in -- th atm

y win an d th e em in en t d om ai n d efea t h ada lo t t o d o wi th it .” In de ed , Lozm ansupp orte d t he cam pa ig ns of t wo o f th e n ew co un ci l m em be rs ele ct edin 20 07 , who th enturn ed aro un d a ndsi gn edth e u na ni m ou s C it y Co un ci l re so lu ti on au th or iz in g t he m ari na ’s ne w rul es an d re gu la ti on s. The di stric t co urt d idno t err in gra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t t o t he Cit y on Loz m an ’s affi rm at iv e d efen se of r et al ia ti on . Like th e d is tri ctco urt, we n eedno t reac h the qu es ti on s o f whe th er Lo zm an ’s sp eech was c on st itut io na ll y pro te ct ed an d wh ethe r th e Ci ty’ s ru le s ch an ge s an d a rres t o f th e Defen da ntwou ldha ve oc cu rredin th e ab se nc e o f Loz m an ’s sp eech . III. Loz m an ’s fin al arg um en t i s t ha t t he Cit y was ju di ci al ly esto pp edfro m br in gi ng a fed eral m ari ti m e cl ai m ag ai ns t t he Defen da ntinli gh t o f th e Ci ty’ s arg um en t i n s ta te co urt tha t Lo zm an ’s do ck ag e ag reem en t wi th th e m ari naga ve ris e to a no nr es id en ti al ten an cy subjec t t o F lo rid a la w. Lozm an ’s arg um en t i s wit ho utm eri t. J ud ic ia l es to pp el is “ de si gn edto pre ve ntpa rti es fro m m ak in g a m oc ke ry of ju st ic e b y

in co ns is te ntpl ead in gs .” McKi nn on v. Bl ue Cro ss & Bl ue

30Sh ie ldof Al a., 93 5 F .2d11 87 , 11 92 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ). Whi le jud ic ia l es to pp el

“ can no t b e reduc edto a pr eci se form ul a o r te st ,” Zedne r v. Un it edSta te s, 5 47 U.S. 48 9, 5 04 (20 06 ), th ree f

act or s ty pi cal ly info rm

th e in qu iry: (1 ) whe th er the re i s a cl ear i nc on si st en cy

be twee n t he earl ie r po si ti on an d t he lat er p os it io n; (2) a pa rty’ s su cces s i n c on vi nc in g aco urt o f th e ear li er p os it io n, s o t ha t ju di ci al acce pt an ce o f th e in co ns is te ntlat er p os it io n wo ul d c reat e th e p erce pt io n t ha t ei th er the earl ie r or la te r co urt was m is le d; an d (3 ) whe th er the in co ns is te ntlat er p os it io n wo ul d un fai rly preju di ce t he op po si ng pa rty if n otest op pe d. J affe v. Ba nkof Am ., N.A. , 39 5 F . App ’x 58 3, 5 87 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (p er cu ria m) (unp ub li sh ed ); s ee al so Zedne r, 54 7 U.S. at50 4. The fir stfact oris cru ci al ; wi th ou t i nc on si st en cy th ere i s n o b as is forjud ic ia l es to pp el an d n o re as onev ento reac h t he ot he r two fact or s. See Zedn er, 5 47 U.S. at50 6. Lo zm ando es no t ev enbe gi n t o s ho w ho w th ere c ou ldbe a “ cl ear in co ns is te nc y ” b etweenth e Ci ty’ s ea rli er p os it io n tha t a d oc ka ge ag reem en t be twee n h im

an d t he Cit y

is go ve rn edby stat e land lo rd -te na ntlaw an d the Cit y ’s cu rren t p os it io n t ha t t he Defen da ntis a ve ss el subjec t t o fe de ral adm ira lt y juri sd ic ti on . Becau se th ere i s n o c le ar i nc on si st en cy he re, the di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y co nc lu de d t ha t the Cit y

was n otest op pe d fr om

bri ng in g i ts act io n i n ad m ira lt y ag ai ns t t he Defen da nt . 31Loz m anm ak es a se co ndest op pe l ar gu m en t, wh ic h i s eq ua ll y unpe rs ua si ve . Sp eci fic al ly, Loz m anass ert s t ha t, b ecau se th e st at e co urt ru le d tha t t he Cit y ’s 20 06 ev ic ti on att em

ptwas i m pr op er re ta li at io n, und er the do ctrin e o f co ll at eral est op pe l, th e d is tri ctco urt was requi redto rul e th atth e Ci ty’ s ad m ira lt y act io n was als o im pr op er re ta li at io n a ga in sthi m forth e ex erci se of h is Fir stAm en dm en t ri gh ts . An el em en t o f co ll at eral est op pe l i s t ha t “ th e is su e atst ak e m us t b e id en ti cal to th e on e al le ge d i n the pri orli ti ga ti on .” Greenbl att v . Drex el Bu rn ha m Lam be rt, In c., 76 3 F .2d13 52 , 13 60 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ). Mo reo ve r, “ [t]he ap pl ic at io n o f co ll at eral 1 1 es to pp el is co m

m it te d t o t he so un d d is cret io n o f th e d is tri ctco urt,” i d., an d, acco rd in gl y , we rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on whet he r orno t t o app ly co ll at eral est op pe l fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Dai li de v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 3 87 F.3d 13 35 , 13 41 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). The di stric t co urt co ul d n otha ve ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d ecl in in g t o app ly co ll at eral est op pe l, b ecau se th e is su es at s ta ke he re ar e si gn ifi can tl y di ffer en t fr om th os e in di sp ut e in th e st at e co urt p ro ceed in g. In th is cas e, th e is su es be fo re the di st ric t co urt wer e whe th er the Defen da ntwas ave ss el , whet he r th e Defen da ntwas “The re a re se vera l prere quisites to the application of collate ral e stoppel: (1) the issue at 1 1 stake must be identica l to the one alleg ed in the prior litig ation; (2) the issue must have been actua lly litigated in the prior litigation; and (3) the deter mination of the issue in the prior litigation must have be en a c ritical and ne cessa ry part of thejudgme nt in that earlier action.” Gre enblatt, 763 F.2d at 1360 (citingDeWeesev. Town of Palm B eac h, 688 F.2d 731, 733 ( 11th Cir. 1982)). 32tre sp as si ng , andwhet he r th e Ci ty hel d am ari ti m e li enforne ces sa rie s o n t he

Defen da nt(an d t he am ou ntowedun de r th atli en ). Non e o f th es e is su es were pr ev io us ly lit ig at ed . Lozm anco nt en ds th atth e “ id en ti cal ” is su e atst ak e is whe th er the Cit y

ret al ia te d a ga in sthi m

“ fo r th e ex erci se of h is Fir stAm en dm en t rig ht s, wh ic h i ss ue was re so lv edin hi s fa vo r in th e st at e co urt ac ti on .” Bu t t hi s st at em en t o f th e is su e is m is le ad in g. Th e fac tu al pre di cat e fo r th e ret al ia ti on cl ai m , as we h av e d is cu ss ed , has who ll y ch an ge d s in ce t he 20 07 st at e co urt v erd ic t in Lozm an ’s fav or . There is a ne w Cit y Co un ci l, wh ic h p as se d aun an im ou s res ol ut io n re vi si ng th e m ari narul es an d re gu la ti on s, an d t hi s i s an in rem act io n ag ai ns t t he Defen da ntba se d i n l arg e p arton Lozm an ’s fai lu re t o c om pl y with th os e ru le s an d re gu la ti on s (a ndon Lozm an ’s fai lu re t o p ay do ck ag e fee s) . The Ci ty’ s ea rli er 2 00 6 e vi ct io n a tt em pt-- th e p ur

po rte d re as on s fo r whi ch were Loz m an ’s fai lu re t o m

uz zl e h is sm al l d og an d h is us e o f un ap pr ov edrep ai rp ers on s -- i s n otid en ti cal or e ve n s im il ar -- f actua ll y or l eg al ly -- to th e Ci ty’ s 2 00 9 ad m ira lt y act io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt was no t re qu ire d t o g iv e an y cred en ce t o t he st at e co urt p ro ceed in gs in th is cas e, an d d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d ecl in in g t o ap pl y co ll at eral est op pe l. The di stric t co urt’s o rd ers of p art ia l s umm ary jud gm en t an d fi na l ju dg m en t in fav orof t he City

are AFFIRMED . 33