1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Defiance Charters, LLC

Petitioner

v.

Florida Yacht Management, LLC

Respondent

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 

§ § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §

PETITION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ARBITRATION

COMES NOW the Petitioner, Defiance Charters, LLC, hereinafter “Defiance Charters”, 

by and through its undersigned attorneys, and pursuant to 9 U.S.C §§ 3-5, files this Petition for

an Order Compelling Arbitration, stating as follows:

SUMMARY OF ACTION

This action comes before the Court between two parties who agree that their dispute is 

subject to arbitration, but disagree as to the number and selection of arbitrators under the 

underlying arbitration agreement and arbitration rules invoked therein. Consequently the 

arbitration has suffered a mechanical breakdown which cannot be resolved by the parties or the 

arbitrators, because the composition of the arbitration panel is disputed. Pursuant to 9 U.S.C § 5, 

the Court has the authority and the mandate to appoint the arbitration panel so that the arbitration 

may proceed.

The dispute arises from a contract between Petitioner Defiance Charters and Respondent 

Florida Yacht Management, LLC (“FYM”), which contract contains a clause for mandatory 

0:22-cv-62020

Case 0:22-cv-62020-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2022 Page 1 of 7
2

arbitration to be conducted under the Miami Maritime Arbitration Council (MMAC) Rules, and 

specific terms for the selection of arbitrators. Petitioner Defiance Charters argues that the language 

in the parties’ contract specifying the selection of arbitrators – which Respondent FYM wrote –

should control. Respondent argues to the contrary that the default MMAC Rules for selection of 

arbitrators, which are inconsistent with the terms of the parties’ contract, should control. This 

dispute is significant, as under the terms of the parties’ contract the sole arbitrator nominated by 

Defiance Charters will preside over the arbitration – whereas under the MMAC Rules, three 

arbitrators selected by both parties would be empaneled.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.

§ 203, which provides: “[a]n action or proceeding falling under the Convention

shall be deemed to arise under the laws and treaties of the United States. The 

district courts of the United States . . . shall have original jurisdiction over such an action 

or proceeding, regardless of the amount in controversy.”

2. The Court additionally has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333, Admiralty

Jurisdiction, where the underlying dispute is for a breach of maritime contract and for

maritime tort. Namely, the contract between the parties was to provide services on a vessel

in navigation, and Petitioner’s underlying tort claims are for damages arising from a fire

on board that same vessel.

3. Subject Matter Jurisdiction is also appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, where Petitioner

and Defendant are diverse corporate citizens and the amount in controversy is greater than

$75,000 exclusive of interest and costs.

4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, where the contract under

Case 0:22-cv-62020-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2022 Page 2 of 7
3

dispute was formed and was to be performed in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where the vessel 

fire giving rise to the underlying claims occurred in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where the 

Respondent is a corporate resident of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and the arbitration 

agreement calls for arbitration in the Southern District of Florida.

PARTIES

5. Petitioner Defiance Charters LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and was the

owner of the Motor Vessel Polaris, which caught fire while on the hard in Fort

Lauderdale on July 26, 2019.

6. Respondent Florida Yacht Management, LLC is a Florida limited liability company

which was engaged by Plaintiff for the care, custody, and maintenance of the M/V Polaris

at the time of the fire.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

7. Petitioner Defiance Charters, LLC, the corporate owner of a motor yacht, entered into a

contract with Respondent Florida Yacht Management, LLC in March of 2018 for

Respondent to provide maintenance, repair, and management services for Petitioner’s

yacht. See Yacht Management Agreement, Exhibit 1 to the accompanying Memorandum

in Support.

8. In July of 2019 Petitioner’s motor yacht caught fire while in Respondent’s custody and care,

causing over $1 million in damages. The underlying arbitration is a claim for damages

arising from said vessel fire.

9. The Yacht Management Agreement at Section 18 provides for mandatory arbitration of any

disputes between the parties, such arbitration to be held in Miami, Florida under the Rules

of Procedure of the Miami Maritime Arbitration Council (MMAC). Id.

Case 0:22-cv-62020-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2022 Page 3 of 7
4

10. Section 18 of the Yacht Management Agreement also provides for an explicit process of 

selecting arbitrators, which differs from the default selection process set forth in the MMAC 

Rules.

11. As set forth more fully in the accompanying Memorandum, the principal difference 

between the arbitrator selection process stipulated in Section 18 of the parties’ Agreement 

and the default MMAC Rules, is as follows:

a. Under the provisions of the Agreement, one party nominates an arbitrator and the 

second party has twenty days to nominate a second arbitrator. Provided the second 

party makes a timely nomination, those two arbitrators jointly appoint a third 

arbitrator. If the second party fails to nominate an arbitrator within twenty days, the 

arbitration proceeds with the first party’s sole named arbitrator.

b. Under the default provisions of MMAC Rule 7, after the first party nominates its 

arbitrator the second party has thirty days to nominate a second arbitrator. 

Provided the second party makes a timely nomination, those two arbitrators jointly 

appoint a third arbitrator. If the second party fails to name an arbitrator within thirty 

days, the Miami Maritime Arbitration Council appoints a second arbitrator, and 

the two arbitrators thus empaneled nominate the third arbitrator.

12. The reason this matter comes before the Court on a Petition to Compel Arbitration, is that 

following Petitioner’s nomination of an arbitrator on March 28, 2022, Respondent failed 

to nominate its own arbitrator within twenty days, as required by Section 18 of the parties’ 

Agreement.

13. Petitioner argues that the language of the parties’ Agreement controls, and therefore the 

arbitration should proceed under Petitioner’s sole named arbitrator. 

Case 0:22-cv-62020-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2022 Page 4 of 7
5

14. Respondent argues that the language of the MMAC Rules controls despite the explicit 

contrary language of the parties’ contract – which Respondent itself drafted – and 

therefore that the arbitration should proceed with three arbitrators. Again, these issues 

are briefed more thoroughly in the accompanying Memorandum.

FIRST CLAIM

(Order Compelling Arbitration and Designating Arbitrator Pursuant to 9 U.S.C. §§ 3-5)

15. The parties to this action are parties to a contract entitled Yacht Management 

Agreement, attached as Exhibit 1 to the accompanying Memorandum in Support.

16. The Yacht Management Agreement at Section 18 provides for mandatory arbitration of any 

disputes between the parties. Id.

17. The Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C § 1, et seq. provides at section 4:

A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another to arbitrate 

under a written agreement for arbitration may petition any United States district 

court which, save for such agreement, would have jurisdiction under title 28, in 

a civil action or in admiralty of the subject matter of a suit arising out of the 

controversy between the parties, for an order directing that such arbitration 

proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement.

18. The Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C § 1, et seq. provides at section 5:

If in the agreement provision be made for a method of naming or appointing an 

arbitrator or arbitrators or an umpire, such method shall be followed; but if no 

method be provided therein, or if a method be provided and any party thereto 

shall fail to avail himself of such method, or if for any other reason there shall be 

a lapse in the naming of an arbitrator or arbitrators or umpire, or in filling a 

vacancy, then upon the application of either party to the controversy the court 

shall designate and appoint an arbitrator or arbitrators or umpire, as the case may 

require, who shall act under the said agreement with the same force and effect as 

if he or they had been specifically named therein; and unless otherwise provided 

in the agreement the arbitration shall be by a single arbitrator.

19. The parties in this dispute are agreed that they are bound to arbitrate, but disagree as to 

the manner of selecting the arbitrator(s) and their number, constituting a “lapse” of the 

arbitration within the meaning of 9 U.S.C § 5.

Case 0:22-cv-62020-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2022 Page 5 of 7
6

20. Consequently, in order to resolve the mechanical breakdown of the underlying arbitration,

Petitioner respectfully requests the Court to order that the arbitration proceed pursuant to

its 9 U.S.C § 4 authority, and that the arbitration proceed with a sole arbitrator pursuant

to its 9 U.S.C § 5 authority, and that the sole arbitrator empaneled be Robert S. Glenn, Jr.,

for the reasons set out more fully in the accompanying Memorandum as required by 9

U.S.C § 6 and S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(a) .

WHEREFORE, for these reasons and those more fully stated in the attached Memorandum 

Support, Petitioner Defiance Charters respectfully requests this Court to issue an Order 

directing arbitration of the parties’ dispute under a single arbitrator, and staying these 

proceedings pending said arbitration.

Respectfully Submitted 

October 31, 2022

_________/s/___________ 

Justin S. Fiorilli (FL. Bar No. 111481) 

Lochner Law Firm, P.C. 

91 Main St., 4th Floor 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

T: (443) 716-4400 

F: (443) 716-4405 

justin@fiorillillaw.com 

Pro Hac Vice to be filed 

Todd D. Lochner 

(MD Bar No. 25691) 

tlochner@boatinglaw.com 

Lochner Law Firm, P.C. 

91 Main Street, 4th Floor 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

(443) 716-4400

Attorneys for the Petitioner

Defiance Charters, LLC

Local Rule 5.2(a) Certificate of Service

Case 0:22-cv-62020-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2022 Page 6 of 7
7

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing initial pleading, together with 

summons when issued, will be served pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 4 on the following:

Florida Yacht Management, LLC

2525 Marina Bay Dr. West

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312

Respondent

_________/s/___________

Justin S. Fiorilli

Case 0:22-cv-62020-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2022 Page 7 of 7