FI L ED

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S

EL EVENTH CI RCUI T

J ANUARY 21, 2010

J OHN L EY

ACTI NG CL ERK [ P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

N o

. 0 9

- 1 0 0 8 3

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 4

- 0 0 1 4 6

- C V

- B A E

- 4

M I S E N E R M A R I N E C O N S T R U C T I O N

, I N C

. ,

P l a i n t i f f

- C o u n t e r

- D e f

e n d a n t

C o u n t e r

- C l a i m a n t

- A p p e l l e e

,

v e r s u s

N O R F O L K D R E D G I N G C O M P A N Y

,

D e f e n d a n t

- C o u n t e r

- C l a i m a n t

C r o s s

- D e f

e n d a n t

- C r o s s

C l a i m a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

,

T R A V E L E R S C A S U A L T Y A N D S U R E T Y

C O M P A N Y O F A M E R I C A

,

D e f e n d a n t

- C o u n t e r

- D e f

e n d a n t

A p p e l l e e

, G E N E R A L G A S C A R R I E R C O R P O R A T I O N

,

D e f e n d a n t

- C r o s s

- C l a i m a n t

C r o s s

- D e f

e n d a n t

C o u n t e r

- D e f

e n d a n t

,L P G / C S T E V E N N

,

D e f e n d a n t

- C r o s s

- C l a i m a n t

C o u n t e r

- D e f

e n d a n t

,

P C S P H O S P H A T E C O M P A N Y

, I N C

. ,

P C S N I T R O G E N F E R T I L I Z E R

, L

. P

. ,

D e f e n d a n t s

- C o u n t e r

- C l a i m a n t s

T h i r d

- P a r t y P l a i n t i f

f s

,

G E O R G I A P O R T S A U T H O R I T Y

,

T h i r d

- P a r t y D e f e n d a n t

C o u n t e r

- C l a i m a n t

C o u n t e r

- D e f

e n d a n t

- A p p e l l e e

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t

f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f G e o r g i a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

( J a n u a r y 2 1

, 2 0 1 0 )

B e f o r e B L A C K

, W I L S O N a n d C O X

, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.

W I L S O N

, C i r c u i t J u d g e :

T h i s c a s e c o n c e r n s w h e t h e r t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y i n a d i s p u t e a r i s i n g f r o m a

d r e d g i n g c o n t r a c t i s e n t i t l e d t o c o l l e c t a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s

. M i s e n e r M a r i n e

C o n s t r u c t i o n

, I n c

. s u b c o n t r a c t e d N o r f o l k D r e d g i n g C o m p a n y t o d r e d g e s e c t i o n s o f

t h e S a v a n n a h R i v e r

, a n a v i g a b l e w a t e r w a y

, a s p a r t o f a l a r g e r c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o j e c t

2a t t h e P o r t o f S a v a n n a h ( t h e “ P o r t ” )

. A f t e r p r o b l e m s a t t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n s i t e

M i s e n e r s u e d N o r f

o l k

, a n d N o r f

o l k c o u n t e r c l a i m e d

. N o r f o l k p r e v a i l e d i n b o t h

M i s e n e r ’ s l a w s u i t a n d i t s c o u n t e r c l a i m s

. N o r f o l k c o n t e n d s t h a t i t i s e n t i t l e d t o

a t t o r n e y s ’ f

e e s p u r s u a n t t o t h e G e o r g i a P r o m p t P a y A c t ( “ G P P A ” )

. A f t e r r e a d i n g 1

t h e b r i e f s

, e x a m i n i n g t h e r e c o r d

, a n d c o n s i d e r i n g e a c h p a r t y ’ s o r a l a r g u m e n t

, w e

a f f i r m t h e o r d e r o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e n y i n g N o r f o l k r e c o v e r y o f a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s

u n d e r t h e G P P A

. W e h o l d t h a t t h e A m e r i c a n R u l e b a r r i n g t h e s h i f t i n g o f

a t t o r n e y s ’ f

e e s i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f

e a t u r e o f m a r i t i m e l a w

, w h i c h g o v e r n s t h e 2

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e c o n t r a c t i n t h i s c a s e

. T h e G P P A i s i n d i r e c t c o n f l i c t w i t h t h i s

p r i n c i p l e o f m a r i t i m e l a w

. M o r e o v e r

, N o r f o l k w a s f r e e t o c o n t r a c t f

o r a t t o r n e y s ’

f e e s b u t c h o s e n o t t o

.

I

. F A C T S A N D P R O C E D U R A L H I S T O R Y

T h e P o r t o f S a v a n n a h i s t h e “ f o u r t h

- l a r g e s t c o n t a i n e r p o r t i n t h e U n i t e d

S t a t e s a n d t h e l a r g e s t s i n g l e

- t e r m i n a l o p e r a t i o n i n N o r t h A m e r i c a

. ” I t i s a g a t e w a y 3

The GPPA is a cha

pter of the Geor g ia Code that re g ulates construc tion contrac ts and 1

pay ments betwee n contra ctors and subc ontrac tors. O.C.G.A. § 13-11- 1 et seq . Section 8 of the

GPPA provides for the r ecove ry of attorne y s’ fe es by

a pre vailing pa

rty . O.C.G.A. § 13-11- 8

(“In any action to enf

orce a cla im under this chapter , the pre vailing pa rty is entitled to recove r a

rea sonable fe e for

the servic es of its attorney including but not limited to trial and appe al and

arbitra tion, in an amount to be deter mined by the cour t or the ar bitrators, as the c ase ma

y be.”)

.

The ter ms “maritime law” and “a dmiralty law” a re use d intercha

ng eably throug hout our 2

opinion.

Geor g ia Ports Authority , http:// www.g aports.com/De fault.aspx? tabid=122 (la st visit ed

3

Nov. 24, 2009).

3t o a n d f

r o m t h e A t l a n t i c O c e a n a n d s e r v e s a s “ a m a j o r d i s t r i b u t i o n h u b t o a n d f r o m

a 2 6

- s t a t e r e g i o n

— f

u l l y 7 5 % o f t h e U

. S

. p o p u l a t i o n

. ” M i s e n e r w a s c o n t r a c t e d b y 4

t h e G e o r g i a P o r t s A u t h o r i t y t o d e m o l i s h a d o c k a n d b u i l d a n e w d o c k a t t h e P o r t

.

A s p a r t o f t h i s p r o

j e c t

, M i s e n e r s u b c o n t r a c t e d N o r f o l k t o d r e d g e p a r t s o f t h e

S a v a n n a h R i v e r i n t h e P o r t

. N o r f o l k d r a f t e d a t w o

- p a g e d r e d g i n g c o n t r a c t t h a t w a s

s u b s e q u e n t l y s i g n e d b y M i s e n e r

. T h e c o n t r a c t d i d n o t c o n t a i n a c h o i c e

- o f

- l a w

p r o v i s i o n

. A n d

, m o s t i m p o r t a n t l y

, i t d i d n o t c o n t a i n a p r o v i s i o n p r o v i d i n g f o r

a t t o r n e y s ’ f

e e s

.

N o r f o l k s t a r t e d t h e d r e d g i n g w o r k o n M a r c h 2 3

, 2 0 0 4 a n d c o m p l e t e d i t

w i t h i n t h e t i m e s p e c i f

i e d b y t h e c o n t r a c t

. T h e a r e a i n w h i c h N o r f o l k w a s d r e d g i n g

w a s c l o s e t o t w o t e m p o r a r y m o o r i n g d o l p h i n s

. O n J u l y 1 2

, 2 0 0 4 t h e s e m o o r i n g 5

d o l p h i n s p u l l e d p a r t i a l l y f r o m t h e r i v e r b e d

, c a u s i n g t h e v e s s e l t h e S t e v e n N t o

r e l e a s e f r o m i t s s e c u r e d p o s i t i o n

. M i s e n e r b l a m e d N o r f o l k ’ s d r e d g i n g f

o r t h e

f a i l u r e a n d b r o u g h t s u i t i n t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f G e o r g i a f o r n e g l i g e n c e

, b r e a c h

o f t h e d r e d g i n g c o n t r a c t

, a n d b r e a c h o f w a r r a n t y

.

M i s e n e r ’ s c o m p l a i n t s t a t e d t h a t t h e l a w s u i t w a s f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e d i s t r i c t

Savannah E conomic De velopment Authority , http:// seda.or g (follow “I ndustries & 4

Companies” hy

perlink; then follow “Port Relate d/ Distribution” hy perlink) ( last visited Nov. 24,

2009)

Mooring dolphins are man- made struc tures that rise a bove the wa

ter a nd are used for 5

various purpose s such as sec uring vessels, supporting war ning sig ns, or protec ting ne arby piers.

4c o u r t ’ s m a r i t i m e j u r i s d i c t i o n

. N o r f o l k a n s w e r e d M i s e n e r ’ s c o m p l a i n t a n d

c o u n t e r c l a i m e d f

o r p a y m e n t f

o r t h e d r e d g i n g w o r k

, i n t e r e s t

, a n d a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s

p u r s u a n t t o t h e G P P A

. I n p l e a d i n g i t s c o u n t e r c l a i m N o r f o l k s t a t e d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t

c o u r t h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n

, b u t d i d n o t e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e t h e b a s i s f o r j u r i s d i c t i o n

. 6

U p o n f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e m o o r i n g d o l p h i n s

, M i s e n e r

d e t e r m i n e d t h a t N o r f

o l k w a s n o t r e s p o n s i b l e

. M i s e n e r f i l e d a v o l u n t a r y d i s m i s s a l

o f i t s c l a i m a g a i n s t N o r f o l k o n O c t o b e r 6

, 2 0 0 5

. N o r f o l k m o v e d f

o r s u m m a r y

j u d g m e n t o n i t s c l a i m f o r p a y m e n t

, i n t e r e s t

, a n d a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s o n N o v e m b e r 8

,

2 0 0 5

.

O n J a n u a r y 6

, 2 0 0 6

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t f o r

N o r f o l k

, g r a n t i n g N o r f

o l k a t t o r n e y s ’ f

e e s p u r s u a n t t o t h e G P P A

, a n d r e s e r v i n g

r u l i n g o n t h e a m o u n t o f a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s t o b e a w a r d e d

. T h e s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t

o r d e r h e l d t h a t t h i s C o u r t ’ s p r e c e d e n t a l l o w e d s t a t e l a w s d e a l i n g w i t h a t t o r n e y s ’

f e e s t o s u p p l e m e n t m a r i t i m e l a w

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t j u d g e r u l e d t h a t t h e r e i s n o t a n 7

Norfolk a sserts on appe al that it filed its counterc laim under diver sity jurisdiction, but 6

the only indication of this is parag raphs two, thre e, and f our of Nor folk’s Counterc laim section

of its Amended Answ er, w here in it st ates the pr incipal place of business of e ach pa rty to the

action.

The orde r cited thre e opinions to support this proposit ion: All Underwriters v. W eisberg

, 7

222 F.3d 1309, 1313–15 ( 11th Cir. 2000) (in matters of ma ritime insurance , state law c ontrols,

and so pre vailing pa

rty was a llowed to rec over a ttorney s’ fe es under state statute); Coastal Fuels

Mktg., Inc . v. Fla. Expre

ss Shipping C

o. , 207 F.3d 1247, 1251–52 ( 11th Cir. 2000) (pre vailing

party in maritime insurance dispute was allowe d to rec over a ttorney s’ fe es whe re pr ovision for

rec overy of attorne y s’ fe es wa s included in the contra ct); and United States ex . rel. Garrett v.

Midwest Constr. C o. , 619 F.2d 349, 353 ( 5th Cir. 1980) (pre vailing pa rty in a dre dg ing dispute

5e s t a b l i s h e d f e d e r a l r u l e r e g a r d i n g a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s i n m a r i t i m e c a s e s

, a n d a t t o r n e y s ’

f e e s i s n o t t h e t y p e o f i s s u e t h a t r e q u i r e s a u n i f o r m n a t i o n a l r u l e

. T h u s

, t h e

r e c o v e r y o f a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s u n d e r t h e G P P A w a s n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h m a r i t i m e

l a w

, a n d t h e G P P A s h o u l d s u p p l e m e n t m a r i t i m e l a w

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t j u d g e

p a s s e d a w a y p r i o r t o i s s u i n g a r u l i n g s e t t i n g t h e a m o u n t o f a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s

.

A n e w d i s t r i c t c o u r t j u d g e w a s s u b s e q u e n t l y a s s i g n e d t o t h e c a s e

. I n

d e t e r m i n i n g t h e a m o u n t o f a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s N o r f o l k w a s e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r

, t h e n e w

j u d g e f o u n d t h a t t h e G P P A c o n f l i c t e d w i t h a g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e o f m a r i t i m e l a w

, t h a t

e a c h p a r t y b e a r s i t s o w n a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d a n o r d e r

d e n y i n g N o r f

o l k a t t o r n e y s ’ f

e e s u n d e r t h e G P P A

. N o r f o l k a p p e a l s t h i s o r d e r

. 8

I I

. S T A N D A R D O F R E V I E W

W e r e v i e w t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n o f m a r i t i m e l a w d e n o v o

. A l l

U n d e r w r i t e r s v

. W

e i s b e r g

, 2 2 2 F

. 3 d 1 3 0 9

, 1 3 1 0 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 0 ) ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d )

.

I I I

. D I S C U S S I O N

N o r f o l k p r e s e n t s s e v e r a l a r g u m e n t s a l l a i m e d a t r e c o v e r y o f a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s

p u r s u a n t t o t h e G P P A

. F i r s t

, N o r f o l k a r g u e s t h a t t h i s c a s e a r i s e s u n d e r d i v e r s i t y

j u r i s d i c t i o n a n d G e o r g i a l a w

, i

. e

. t h e G P P A

, s h o u l d a p p l y

. T h e d r e d g i n g c o n t r a c t

was a llowed to collect a ttorney s’ fe es pursua nt to a state statute). A s we discuss later , the initial

district court orde r and N orfolk have misconstrued these holding s in such a wa y as to incorr ectly

interpre t our prec edent.

We have jurisdiction over final orde rs of the district c ourts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 8

6a t i s s u e

, h o w e v e r

, m a k e s t h i s c a s e o n e o f m a r i t i m e j u r i s d i c t i o n a n d t h u s t h e d i s t r i c t

c o u r t p r o p e r l y a p p l i e d s u b s t a n t i v e m a r i t i m e l a w

. S e c o n d

, N o r f o l k c o n t e n d s t h a t

o u r p r e c e d e n t s u p p o r t s t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e G P P A t o d r e d g i n g c a s e s

. T h i s

a r g u m e n t i s b a s e d o n a m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f o u r p r e c e d e n t a n d h a s n o m e r i t

. T h i r d

,

N o r f o l k a r g u e s t h a t t h e G P P A c a n s u p p l e m e n t s u b s t a n t i v e m a r i t i m e l a w b e c a u s e

t h e b a r a g a i n s t s h i f

t i n g a t t o r n e y s ’ f

e e s i s n o t a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e o f m a r i t i m e

l a w a n d t h e G P P A w i l l n o t c o n t r a v e n e t h e u n i f o r m i t y i n t e r e s t s o f m a r i t i m e l a w

.

W e f i n d t h e r u l e t h a t e a c h p a r t y g e n e r a l l y b e a r s i t s o w n a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s i s a

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f

e a t u r e o f m a r i t i m e l a w

. T h e G P P A w o u l d d i r e c t l y c o n t r a v e n e t h i s

e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e o f m a r i t i m e l a w

. F u r t h e r

, a c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d e x c e p t i o n e x i s t s

w h e r e i n N o r f

o l k w a s f r e e t o c o n t r a c t f

o r t h e i n d e m n i f

i c a t i o n o f a t t o r n e y s ’ f

e e s

.

N o r f o l k c h o s e n o t t o i n c l u d e s u c h a p r o v i s i o n i n t h e c o n t r a c t a n d w e w i l l n o t g i v e

N o r f o l k a s e c o n d b i t e a t t h e a p p l e b y w a y o f t h e G P P A

.

A

. S u b s t a n t i v e M

a r i t i m e L a w C o n t r o l

s T h i s C a s e

T h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s h a v e p r i m a r y j u r i s d i c t i o n o f m a r i t i m e i s s u e s

. T o 9

d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a c o n t r a c t f a l l s w i t h i n m a r i t i m e j u r i s d i c t i o n w e l o o k t o “ t h e

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases . . . of admira lty and mar itime 9

J urisdiction.” U.S. Const. art. I I I , § 2, cl. 1. Cong ress c odified this Consti tutional gr ant of

jurisdiction as follows: “The district cour ts shall have orig inal jurisdiction, ex clusive of the

courts of the States, of: (1) Any civil case of admira lty

or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors

in all case s all other re medies to which they are otherwise e ntitled.” 28 U.S.C. § 1333

.

7s u b

j e c t

- m a t t e r

, t h e n a t u r e a n d c h a r a c t e r o f t h e c o n t r a c t

. . . t h e t r u e c r i t e r i o n b e i n g

t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c o n t r a c t

, a s t o w h e t h e r i t h a v e r e f e r e n c e t o m a r i t i m e s e r v i c e o r

m a r i t i m e t r a n s a c t i o n s

. ” N

. P a c

. S

. S

. C o

. v

. H

a l l B r o s

. M

a r i n e R y

. & S h i p b u i l d i n g

C o

. , 2 4 9 U

. S

. 1 1 9

, 1 2 5

, 3 9 S

. C t

. 2 2 1

, 2 2 3 ( 1 9 1 9 )

. I n H a l l B r o t h e r s t h e S u p r e m e

C o u r t h e l d t h a t a n a g r e e m e n t t o r e p a i r a s h i p

, e v e n t h o u g h o n a d r y d o c k

, w a s a

m a r i t i m e c o n t r a c t

. I

d

. a t 1 2 9

, 3 9 S

. C t

. a t 2 2 4

. “ I n s u m

, w e l o o k t o w h e t h e r t h e

s u b s t a n c e o f t h e c o n t r a c t a t i s s u e i n t h e d i s p u t e

— w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e i d e n t i t y o f

t h e p a r t i e s

— i s r e a s o n a b l y n e c e s s a r y t o t h e c o n d u c t o f m a r i t i m e c o m m e r c e

. ”

A m b a s s a d o r F a c t o r s v

. R h e i n

- , M a a s

- , u n d S e e

- S c h i

f f a h r t s k o n t o r G m b H

, 1 0 5 F

. 3 d

1 3 9 7

, 1 3 9 9 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 1 9 9 7 ) ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d )

.

T h e p r i m a r y o b

j e c t i v e o f t h e c o n t r a c t b e t w e e n N o r f o l k a n d M i s e n e r w a s

d r e d g i n g a n a v i g a b l e w a t e r w a y i n a p o r t t h a t s e r v i c e s i n t e r n a t i o n a l a n d n a t i o n a l

c o m m e r c e

. T h e r e i s n o d o u b t t h a t t h e w o r k c o n t r a c t e d f o r a n d p e r f

o r m e d b y

N o r f o l k h a d a d i r e c t e f

f e c t o n m a r i t i m e s e r v i c e s a n d c o m m e r c e

. F u r t h e r

, t h e

S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a t d r e d g i n g i s t r a d i t i o n a l l y a m a r i t i m e

a c t i v i t y

. N o r f

o l k ’ s d r e d g i n g c o n t r a c t

, a n d t h e d i s p u t e a r i s i n g t h e r e f r o m

, f a l l s 1 0

See Ste wart v. Dutra Const r. Co. , 543 U.S. 481, 495–97, 125 S. C t. 1118, 1127–29 1 0

(2005) ( dredg e wa s a vesse l and thus fell under the L ong shore a

nd Har bor Workers’

Compensation Act, a mar itime statute); Ellis v. United States , 206 U.S. 246, 259, 27 S. C t. 600,

603 (1907) ( citation omitted) (dre dg es ar e vesse ls and fall “w ithin the admiralty jurisdiction of

the United States”) ; see ge nerally Je rome B. Grubart, Inc . v. Gre at Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.

, 513 U.S. 527, 540, 115 S. C t. 1043, 1051 (1995) (la wsuit conce rning a fixed barg e on the

Chicag o River fe ll under maritime jurisdiction beca use “r epair

or maintena

nce w ork on a

8w i t h i n t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s ’ m a r i t i m e j u r i s d i c t i o n

. 1 1

“ W i t h a d m i r a l t y j u r i s d i c t i o n c o m e s t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f s u b s t a n t i v e a d m i r a l t y

l a w

. ” E

. R i v e r S

. S

. C o r

p

. v

. T r a n s a m e r i c a D e l a v a l

, I n c

. , 4 7 6 U

. S

. 8 5 8

, 8 6 4

, 1 0 6 S

.

C t

. 2 2 9 5

, 2 2 9 8

– 9 9 ( 1 9 8 6 )

. “ D r a w n f r o m s t a t e a n d f

e d e r a l s o u r c e s

, t h e g e n e r a l

m a r i t i m e l a w i s a n a m a l g a m o f t r a d i t i o n a l c o m m o n

- l a w r u l e s

, m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f

t h o s e r u l e s

, a n d n e w l y c r e a t e d r u l e s

. ” I d

. a t 8 6 4

– 8 6 5

, 1 0 6 S

. C t

. a t 2 2 9 9 ( f o o t n o t e

o m i t t e d )

. W h i l e C o n g r e s s i s e m p o w e r e d t o p a s s l a w s r e g a r d i n g m a r i t i m e

a c t i v i t i e s

, a l a r g e p a r t o f t h e b o d y o f s u b s t a n t i v e m a r i t i m e l a w h a s a r i s e n f r o m

c o m m o n l a w p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t

. W i l b u r n B o a t C o

. v

. F i r e m a n ’ s

F u n d I n s

. C o

. , 3 4 8 U

. S

. 3 1 0

, 3 1 4

, 7 5 S

. C t

. 3 6 8

, 3 7 0 ( 1 9 5 5 )

. “ A n d S t a t e s c a n n o

m o r e o v e r r i d e s u c h j u d i c i a l r u l e s v a l i d l y f a s h i o n e d t h a n t h e y c a n o v e r r i d e A c t s o f

C o n g r e s s

. ” I

d

.

B

. M a r i t i m e L a w G e n e r a l l

y R e q u i r e s T

h a t E a c h P a r t

y B e a r I t s O w n A t t o r n e

y s ’

F e e s

T h e l a w i n t h i s C i r c u i t r e g a r d i n g a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s i n m a r i t i m e d i s p u t e s i s

navig able wa

terwa y perf ormed fr om a vessel” was substantially rela ted to traditional maritime

activity ).

Norfolk ha s arg ued that they pleade d diversity

jurisdiction in their counterc laim, thus 1 1

Geor g ia law a

nd the GPPA should apply . Even if this ca se we re f iled under dive rsity

, substantive maritime law would still apply

. See Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn , 346 U.S. 406,

411, 74 S. Ct . 202, 206 (1953) ( finding that substantive maritime law a pplied in a maritime tort

even thoug h the suit was filed unde r diversity jurisdiction). “[T] he substantial rig hts of an

injured per son are not to be deter mined differ ently

whether his case is labe lled ‘law side’ or

‘admira lty

side’ on a district c ourt’s docke t.” Id.

9c l e a r

. “ T h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y i n a n a d m i r a l t y c a s e i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r i t s 1 2

a t t o r n e y s ’ f

e e s a s a m a t t e r o f c o u r s e

. ” N a t c o L t d

. P ’ s h i

p v

. M o r a n T

o w i n g o f F l a

. ,

I n c

. , 2 6 7 F

. 3 d 1 1 9 0

, 1 1 9 3 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 1 ) ( c i t i n g N o r i t a k e C o

. , I

n c

. v

. M / V

H e l l e n i c C h a m

p i o n

, 6 2 7 F

. 2 d 7 2 4

, 7 3 0 ( 5 t h C i r

. 1 9 8 0 ) ( “ A b s e n t s o m e s t a t u t o r y

a u t h o r i z a t i o n

, t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y i n a n a d m i r a l t y c a s e i s g e n e r a l l y n o t e n t i t l e d t o

a n a w a r d f

o r a t t o r n e y s ’ f

e e s

. ” ) ) ; s e e a l

s o C o a s t a l F u e l

s M k t g

. , I n c

. v

. F l a

. E

x p r e s s

S h i p p i n g C o

. , 2 0 7 F

. 3 d 1 2 4 7

, 1 2 5 0 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 0 ) ( “ A p a r t y i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o

a t t o r n e y ’ s f

e e s i n a n a d m i r a l t y c a s e u n l e s s f e e s a r e s t a t u t o r i l y o r c o n t r a c t u a l l y

a u t h o r i z e d

. ” )

. T h e r e a r e e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e g e n e r a l r u l e p r e c l u d i n g r e c o v e r y o f

a t t o r n e y s ’ f

e e s

. S e e N

a t c o

, 2 6 7 F

. 3 d a t 1 1 9 6 ( a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s w e r e p r o p e r l y

a w a r d e d i n a m a r i t i m e c a s e w h e r e a s p e c i f i c c o n t r a c t u a l p r o v i s i o n w a s i n t e r p r e t e d

t o p r o v i d e t h e r e c o v e r y o f a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s )

. A t t o r n e y s ’ f

e e s w i l l b e a w a r d e d t o t h e

p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y i n m a r i t i m e c a s e s i f : “ ( 1 ) t h e y a r e p r o v i d e d b y t h e s t a t u t e

g o v e r n i n g t h e c l a i m

, ( 2 ) t h e n o n p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y a c t e d i n b a d f a i t h i n t h e c o u r s e o f

t h e l i t i g a t i o n

, o r ( 3 ) t h e r e i s a c o n t r a c t p r o v i d i n g f o r t h e i n d e m n i f

i c a t i o n o f

Norfolk f utilely cites United States ex . rel. Garrett v. Midwest Construction Co. , 619 1 2

F.2d 349, 353–54 ( 5th Cir. 1980). (Dec isions is sued by the Fif th Circuit prior to October 1, 1981

are binding pr ece dent in this Ci rcuit. Bonner v. City of Prichard , 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir.

1981) (e n banc) .) Garrett applied a sta te attorne y s’ fe es statute to a dispute a rising f rom a

dredg ing c ontrac t. Garrett , howeve r, wa s decide d under dive rsity jurisdiction, rather tha

n

maritime jurisdiction, and the opinion made no mention of substantive mar itime law. Garrett

did not address the issue pr esente d to us in thi s case , namely whether a state statute pr oviding f or

the re cover

y of attorne y s’ fe es is applicable in a dispute arising under ma ritime law. Thus,

Garrett provides no g uidance to the conclusion we rea ch in this case.

10a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s

. ” I d

. a t 1 1 9 3

. A b s e n t o n e o f t h e s e e x c e p t i o n s

, t h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t

a w a r d t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s

. 1 3

N o r f o l k a s s e r t s t h a t t h e f

i r s t e x c e p t i o n a p p l i e s b e c a u s e t h e G P P A

, a s t a t e

s t a t u t e

, i s t h e “ s t a t u t e g o v e r n i n g t h e c l a i m

. ” W e f i n d n o m e r i t t o t h i s

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

. L o g i c a n d a p r o p e r r e a d i n g o f c a s e l a w d e m a n d l i m i t i n g “ s t a t u t e s

g o v e r n i n g t h e c l a i m ” t o f e d e r a l s t a t u t e s

. S i n c e t h e G P P A i s n o t a f e d e r a l s t a t u t e i t 1 4

d o e s n o t f

a l l w i t h i n t h i s e x c e p t i o n

. N o r f o l k h a s n o t c l a i m e d t h a t t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d

t o a t t o r n e y s ’ f

e e s a s a r e s u l t o f a n y b a d f a i t h o n t h e p a r t o f M i s e n e r

, s o w e w i l l n o t

c o n s i d e r t h e s e c o n d e x c e p t i o n

.

T h e d r e d g i n g c o n t r a c t d i d n o t c o n t a i n a p r o v i s i o n p r o v i d i n g f o r t h e

i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n o f a t t o r n e y s ’ f

e e s

. N o r f

o l k w a s a s o p h i s t i c a t e d p a r t y w h o w a s

, o r

s h o u l d h a v e b e e n

, w e l l a w a r e o f t h e l a w o f o u r C i r c u i t c o n c e r n i n g a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s

Our de cision in All Underwriters v. W eisberg , 222 F.3d 1309 ( 11th Cir. 2000), does not 1 3

conflict with the rule that eac h party g ener ally bear s its own attorney s’ fe es. W eisberg awa rded

attorney s’ fe es to the pre vailing pa rty in a maritime insuranc e dispute pursua nt to a state statute.

222 F.3d a t 1315. Howeve r, the ruling in W eisberg followed the pr ece dent of W ilburn Boat C o.

v. Fireman’

s Fund Ins. Co. , 348 U.S. 310, 316–17, 75 S. C t. 368, 371–72 (1955), whe rein the

Supreme Court ruled tha t states have a strong interest in the re g ulation of insuranc e, including

maritime insuranc e. W

eisberg did not establish a prec edent that a ttorney s’ fe es ar e g ener ally

rec overa ble in maritime disputes. 222 F.3d a t 1313–15. The dete rminative issue in W eisberg

was insura

nce, not a ttorney s’ fe es. Id.

See Noritake Co., Inc. v. M /V Hellenic Champion , 627 F.2d 724, 730 ( 5th Cir. 1980) (in 1 4

outlining the exception for f ees a war ded by

statute, stating “ [n] or is there any other federal

statutory authorization for the a

war d of attorne y s’ fe es”) (empha sis added).

11i n m a r i t i m e c a s e s

. F u r t h e r m o r e

, N o r f o l k d r a f t e d t h e c o n t r a c t

. I n c o n c l u s i o n

, t h e 1 5

g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t e a c h p a r t y b e a r i t s o w n a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s i n m a r i t i m e c o n t r a c t

d i s p u t e s w a s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d a t t h e t i m e t h a t N o r f o l k e n t e r e d i n t o t h e c o n t r a c t

.

S e e N a t c o

, 2 6 7 F

. 3 d a t 1 1 9 3

. T h e c o n t r a c t e x c e p t i o n w a s a l s o w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d

.

S e e i d

. N o r f

o l k w a s f r e e t o c o n t r a c t f

o r t h e i n d e m n i f

i c a t i o n o f a t t o r n e y s ’ f

e e s

, b u t

c h o s e n o t t o

. T h e G P P A w i l l n o t s e r v e a s a n e s c a p e c l a u s e f o r N o r f o l k w h e n t h e

l e g a l f r a m e w o r k f

o r t h e s h i f

t i n g o f a t t o r n e y s ’ f

e e s w a s c l e a r p r i o r t o N o r f o l k ’ s

d r a f t i n g o f t h e c o n t r a c t

.

C

. T h e G P P A C a n n o t S u

p p l e m e n t S u b s t a n t i v e M

a r i t i m e L a w

I n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e

, N o r f

o l k a s k s t h i s C o u r t t o i n c o r p o r a t e t h e G P P A i n t o

s u b s t a n t i v e m a r i t i m e l a w

. “ [ W ] h e n n e i t h e r s t a t u t o r y n o r j u d i c i a l l y c r e a t e d

m a r i t i m e p r i n c i p l e s p r o v i d e a n a n s w e r t o a s p e c i f i c l e g a l q u e s t i o n

, c o u r t s m a y

a p p l y s t a t e l a w p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f s t a t e l a w d o e s n o t f r u s t r a t e n a t i o n a l

i n t e r e s t s i n h a v i n g u n i f

o r m i t y i n a d m i r a l t y l a w

. ” C o a s t a l F u e l s

, 2 0 7 F

. 3 d a t 1 2 5 1

.

S t a t e l a w m a y b e a p p l i e d t o i s s u e s o f a m a r i t i m e n a t u r e i f : ( 1 ) t h e r e i s n o t a n a c t o f

C o n g r e s s t h a t s p e a k s t o t h e i s s u e ; ( 2 ) t h e s t a t e l a w d o e s n o t c o n t r a v e n e a

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f

e a t u r e o f t h e g e n e r a l m a r i t i m e l a w ; a n d ( 3 ) t h e s t a t e l a w d o e s n o t

“The traditional rule of

construction in admira lty case s is to ‘construe the c ontrac t 1 5

lang uag e most strong ly

ag ainst the draf

ter.’” Edward Leasing C orp. v. Uhlig & Assocs., Inc

. , 785 F.2d 877, 889 ( 11th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted).

12i n t e r f

e r e w i t h t h e p r o p e r h a r m o n y a n d u n i f o r m i t y o f m a r i t i m e l a w

. S

. P a c

. C o

. v

.

J e n s e n

, 2 4 4 U

. S

. 2 0 5

, 2 1 6

, 3 7 S

. C t

. 5 2 4

, 5 2 9 ( 1 9 1 7 )

, s u p e r s e d e d b

y s t a t u t e

,

L o n g s h o r e m e n ’ s a n d H a r b o r W o r k e r s ’ C o m p e n s a t i o n A c t

, c h

. 5 0 9

, 4 4 S t a t

. 1 4 2 4

( 1 9 2 7 ) ( c o d i f

i e d a s a m e n d e d a t

, 3 3 U

. S

. C

. § 9 0 1 e t s e q

. )

. C o n g r e s s h a s n o t 1 6

s p o k e n d i r e c t l y o n t h e s u b j e c t o f w h e t h e r a p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y i s o r i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o

c o l l e c t a t t o r n e y s ’ f

e e s i n a d r e d g i n g d i s p u t e

. T h a t l e a v e s u s t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r

t h e s h i f t i n g o f a t t o r n e y s ’ f

e e s “ i s e i t h e r a ‘ c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e ’ o f a d m i r a l t y o r a

d o c t r i n e w h o s e u n i f

o r m a p p l i c a t i o n i s n e c e s s a r y t o m a i n t a i n t h e ‘ p r o p e r h a r m o n y ’

o f m a r i t i m e l a w

. ” A m

. D r e d g i n g C o

. v

. M i l l e r

, 5 1 0 U

. S

. 4 4 3

, 4 4 7

, 1 1 4 S

. C t

. 9 8 1

,

9 8 5 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ( c i t i n g J

e n s e n

, 2 4 4 U

. S

. a t 2 1 6

, 3 7 S

. C t

. a t 5 2 9 )

. W e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e

p r i n c i p l e t h a t e a c h p a r t y b e a r i t s o w n a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f

e a t u r e o f

m a r i t i m e l a w

, a n d s o w e d o n o t r e a c h t h e q u e s t i o n o f p r o p e r h a r m o n y a n d

u n i f o r m i t y

.

The a pplication of this rule has not bee n completely clea r and c onsistent. “I t would be 1 6

idle to pretend tha t the line separ ating permissible from impermissible state re g ulation is readily

discernible in our

admiralty

jurisprudenc e, or inde ed is eve n entirely consistent within our

admiralty jurisprudenc e.” Am. Dredging Co. v. M iller , 510 U.S. 443, 452, 114 S. C t. 981, 987

(1994) ( Scalia, J.). The Supreme Court has inc orpora ted var ious ty pes of state law into the body

of substantive maritime law, unde r var y ing justifica tions. See, e .g., Y amaha Motor Corp., U.S.A.

v. Calhoun , 516 U.S. 199, 215–16, 116 S. C t. 619, 628 (1996) (state wrong ful dea th statute); Am.

Dredging , 510 U.S. at 450–53, 114 S. Ct . at 986–88 (state forum non conve niens rule); Askew v

. Am. W aterways Operators, Inc

. , 411 U.S. 325, 327–29, 93 S. C t. 1590, 1593–94 (1973) (state

law re g ulating oil spills and oil handling in state te rritorial wa ters); W ilburn Boat , 348 U.S. at

312 & nn. 2–3, 75 S. Ct. at 369 & nn. 2–3 (state law reg arding

marine insura

nce c ontrac ts);

Standard Dredging Corp. v. Murphy , 319 U.S. 306, 307, 63 S. C t. 1067, 1067–68 (1943) (state

unemploy ment insurance tax applied to workers on a dredg e).

13D

. T

h e A m e r i c a n R u l e i s a C h a r a c t e r i s t i c F e a t u r e o f S u b s t a n t i v e M

a r i t i m e L a w

T h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t e a c h p a r t y s h o u l d b e a r i t s o w n a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s

, t h e

A m e r i c a n R u l e

, h a s b e c o m e f i r m l y e n t r e n c h e d a n d c o n s i s t e n t l y a d h e r e d t o i n 1 7

A m e r i c a n f

e d e r a l l e g a l p r a c t i c e

. N o r f o l k a r g u e s

, a s s o m e c o u r t s h a v e r u l e d

, t h a t 1 8

t h e r u l e t h a t e a c h p a r t y b e a r i t s o w n a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s i s n o t a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e o f

m a r i t i m e l a w

, b u t i s r a t h e r o n l y a g e n e r a l f e d e r a l p r o c e d u r a l r u l e

. E s s e n t i a l l y

, 1 9

N o r f o l k a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t t h e A m e r i c a n R u l e i s t h e d e f a u l t r u l e o f s u b s t a n t i v e

m a r i t i m e l a w

, b u t a r g u e s t h a t i t d o e s n o t r i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e

o f m a r i t i m e l a w

. T h u s

, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e a n a l y s i s i n J e n s e n

, 2 4 4 U

. S

. a t 2 1 6

, 3 7 S

.

The idea that eac h party

should bear its own a

ttorney s’ fe es is ref

err ed to as the 1 7

Americ an Rule in contra st to the English standar d wher ein the pre vailing pa rty is awar ded

attorney s’ fe es. See P anola Land Buying Ass’n v. Clark , 844 F.2d 1506, 1511 n.16 ( 11th Cir.

1988) (c itation omit ted).

See A lyesk

a Pipeline Serv . Co. v. W ilderness Soc’y , 421 U.S. 240, 271, 95 S. C t. 1612, 1 8

1628 (1975) ( the rule tha t eac h side pay its own attorney s’ fe es is “dee ply rooted in our history

and in cong ressional policy ”); Fleischmann Distilling Cor p. v. Maie r Brewing Co. , 386 U.S.

714, 717, 87 S. Ct . 1404, 1407 (1967) ( “The rule he re ha s long be en that attorne y ’s fe es ar e not

ordinarily rec overa ble in the abse nce of

a statute or e nforc eable contra ct providing there for.” );

Oelrichs v. Spain , 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 211, 231 (1872) (the principle of pr ecluding the shifting of

attorney s’ fe es “r ests on a solid foundation” a nd the shifting of attorney s’ fe es is “for bidden by

the ana logie s of the law a nd sound public policy ”).

I n Hughes v . Foster W

heele r Co. , 932 P.2d 784, 791 (Alaska 1997) , the Supreme Court 1 9

of Alaska incorpora

ted an Ala skan law pr oviding f or the re cover

y of attorne y s’ fe es into

substantive maritime law. The court found tha t the prec lusion of attorney s’ fe es is a rule of

g ener al fe dera l proce dure ( i.e., the Amer ican Rule), not a char acte ristic of maritime law. Id. at

789; see also David W. Robertson, Court-Awarded Attorneys’ Fe es in Maritime Cases: The

“American Rule” in Admiralty, 27 J . Mar. L . & Com. 507, 563–66 (1996) (putting f orth the

arg ument that courts have mistaken the Amer ican Rule for a substantive mar itime rule when it is

actua lly a g ener al fe dera l proce dural rule ).

14C t

. a t 5 2 9

, a n d A m

. D r e d g i n g

, 5 1 0 U

. S

. a t 4 4 7

, 1 1 4 S

. C t

. a t 9 8 5

, t h e d e f a u l t

A m e r i c a n R u l e m u s t g i v e w a y t o t h e G P P A ( p r o v i d e d t h e G P P A d o e s n o t

c o n t r a v e n e t h e u n i f

o r m i t y i n t e r e s t s o f m a r i t i m e l a w )

.

I n A m e r i c a n D r e d

g i n g t h e C o u r t f

o u n d t h a t f

o r u m n o n c o n v e n i e n s w a s n o t a

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f

e a t u r e o f m a r i t i m e l a w b e c a u s e i t “ n e i t h e r o r i g i n a t e d i n a d m i r a l t y

n o r h a s e x c l u s i v e a p p l i c a t i o n t h e r e

. T o t h e c o n t r a r y

, i t i s a n d h a s l o n g b e e n a

d o c t r i n e o f g e n e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n

. ” 5 1 0 U

. S

. a t 4 5 0

, 1 1 4 S

. C t

. a t 9 8 7 ( h o l d i n g t h a t a

L o u i s i a n a f

o r u m n o n c o n v e n i e n s r u l e c o u l d b e u s e d i n a c a s e t h a t w a s a p p l y i n g

s u b s t a n t i v e m a r i t i m e l a w )

. S i m i l a r l y

, t h e A m e r i c a n R u l e d i d n o t o r i g i n a t e i n

m a r i t i m e l a w

, i t d o e s n o t h a v e e x c l u s i v e a p p l i c a t i o n i n m a r i t i m e l a w

, a n d i t i s a

d o c t r i n e o f g e n e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n i n f e d e r a l l a w

.

T h e G P P A i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s h o l d i n g i n A m e r i c a n

D r e d g i n g

. F i r s t

, t h e G P P A i s a s u b s t a n t i v e l a w a s o p p o s e d t o f o r u m n o n

c o n v e n i e n s

, w h i c h i s a p r o c e d u r a l r u l e

. S e c o n d

, i n A m e r i c a n D r e d g i n g t h e r e w a s

n o t a f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d p r i n c i p l e r e g a r d i n g f o r u m n o n c o n v e n i e n s i n m a r i t i m e

c a s e s

. I n c o n t r a s t

, i t h a s l o n g b e e n a n e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e i n m a r i t i m e l a w t h a t e a c h

p a r t y g e n e r a l l y b e a r s t h e c o s t s o f i t s o w n a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s

. 2 0

See supra Section I I I .B.; see also Arcam bel v. W iseman , 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 306, 306 2 0

(1796); The Baltimore , 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 377, 392 (1869); Golden Pisce s, Inc. v . Fred W

ahl

Marine Constr., Inc. , 495 F.3d 1078, 1081 ( 9th Cir. 2007); Texas A& M Rese arch Found. v.

Magna Transp., Inc. , 338 F.3d 394, 405–06 ( 5th Cir. 2003); Southworth Machinery Co., Inc. v

.

15W e h o l d t h a t t h e c o n s i s t e n t a n d c o n t i n u e d a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e A m e r i c a n R u l e

t o m a r i t i m e d i s p u t e s h a s e s t a b l i s h e d t h e A m e r i c a n R u l e a s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e

o f s u b s t a n t i v e m a r i t i m e l a w

. A l t h o u g h w e r e c o g n i z e t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h o s e w h o

a r g u e t h a t t h e A m e r i c a n R u l e i s n o t a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e o f m a r i t i m e l a w

, t h e

l o n g d e v e l o p e d p r e c e d e n t o f t h i s C i r c u i t a n d o t h e r s c a n n o t b e s o e a s i l y s e t a s i d e

.

T h e r e f o r e

, t h e G P P A ’ s e n t i t l e m e n t t o a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s i s i n d i r e c t c o n f

l i c t w i t h t h i s

p r i n c i p l e o f s u b s t a n t i v e m a r i t i m e l a w

. T h u s

, t h e G P P A c a n n o t b e i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o

s u b s t a n t i v e m a r i t i m e l a w

.

I V

. C O N C L U S I O N

W e f i n d t h a t t h e d r e d g i n g c o n t r a c t b e t w e e n N o r f o l k a n d M i s e n e r i s g o v e r n e d

b y s u b s t a n t i v e m a r i t i m e l a w

. F u r t h e r

, t h e r u l e t h a t e a c h p a r t y b e a r i t s o w n

a t t o r n e y s ’ f

e e s i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f

e a t u r e o f s u b s t a n t i v e m a r i t i m e l a w

. N o r f o l k

f r e e l y d r a f

t e d t h e c o n t r a c t b u t c h o s e n o t t o c o n t r a c t o u t o f t h i s g e n e r a l r u l e

. W e

w i l l n o t a l l o w N o r f

o l k t o a l t e r t h e t e r m s o f i t s c o n t r a c t t h r o u g h t h e r e t r o a c t i v e

i n j e c t i o n o f a s t a t e l a w t h a t c o n t r a v e n e s a p r i n c i p l e o f s u b s t a n t i v e m a r i t i m e l a w

.

W e a f f i r m t h e o r d e r o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e n y i n g N o r f o l k ’ s r e q u e s t f

o r a t t o r n e y s ’

f e e s

.

F/V Corey Pride , 994 F.2d 37, 41–42 ( 1st Cir. 1993); Sosebee v. Rath , 893 F.2d 54, 56–57 ( 3rd

Cir. 1990); Kalmbach, Inc. v . Ins. Co. of the State of Pa., Inc. , 422 F.Supp. 44, 46 (D. A laska

1976); Crispi n Co. v. M/V Korea , 251 F.Supp. 878, 879 (S.D. Texas 1965).

16A F F I R M E D

.

17B L A C K

, C i r c u i t J u d g e

, s p e c i a l l y c o n c u r r i n g :

W h i l e I c o n c u r i n t h e r e s u l t

, I w r i t e s e p a r a t e l y b e c a u s e I w o u l d a n a l y z e

d i f f e r e n t l y t h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r t h e G P P A c a n s u p p l e m e n t a d m i r a l t y l a w

. I w o u l d

h o l d a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e G P P A w o u l d d i s r u p t t h e p r o p e r h a r m o n y a n d u n i f o r m i t y o f

a d m i r a l t y l a w

, a n d t h u s I w o u l d n o t r e a c h t h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r t h e A m e r i c a n R u l e

i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f

e a t u r e o f a d m i r a l t y l a w

.

I n A m e r i c a n D r e d

g i n g

, t h e C o u r t f

o u n d a s t a t e l a w r e

j e c t i n g f o r u m n o n

c o n v e n i e n s d i d n o t d i s r u p t t h e u n i f o r m i t y o f m a r i t i m e l a w b e c a u s e t h e d o c t r i n e “ i s

p r o c e d u r a l r a t h e r t h a n s u b s t a n t i v e

, a n d i t i s m o s t u n l i k e l y t o p r o d u c e u n i f o r m

r e s u l t s

. ” 5 1 0 U

. S

. a t 4 5 3

, 1 1 4 S

. C t

. a t 9 8 8

. T h e A m e r i c a n D r e d g i n g C o u r t a l s o

f o u n d f o r u m n o n c o n v e n i e n s w o u l d n o t d i s r u p t t h e u n i f o r m i t y o f a d m i r a l t y l a w

b e c a u s e i t w o u l d h a v e l i t t l e e f f e c t o n p a r t i e s ’ c o n d u c t b o t h i n s i d e a n d o u t s i d e t h e

c o u r t r o o m

. I

d

. a t 4 5 4

- 5 5

, 1 1 4 S

. C t

. a t 9 8 8

- 8 9

. 1

U n l i k e f o r u m n o n c o n v e n i e n s

, t h e A m e r i c a n R u l e i s a s u b s t a n t i v e l a w t h a t

y i e l d s c o n s i s t e n t a n d p r e d i c t a b l e r e s u l t s

. M o r e o v e r

, a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s c a n b e a 2

The Court in American D redging states the uniformity analy sis is not limit ed to the 1

state law’ s impact on maritime commer ce. Id. at 453 n.3, 114 S. Ct. at 988 n.3. As the Court

indicates, howe ver, the Supreme Court’s unifor mity analy sis has not been e ntirely clea r or

consistent. See id. at 452, 114 S. Ct. at 987.

Norfolk a

rg ues the e x ceptions to the Amer ican Rule de monstrate that mar itime law 2

alre ady tolerate s a lac k of uniformity in the provision of attorney s’ fe es. These exceptions,

howeve r, ar e consistently applied on a national level. The A merica n Rule thus y ields consistent

and pre dictable r esults despite its lim ited exceptions.

18s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n o f a p a r t y ’ s r e c o v e r y a n d t h u s c o u l d i n f l u e n c e s e c o n d a r y

b e h a v i o r

, s u c h a s a d e c i s i o n o f w h e r e t o s u e

. O t h e r c o u r t s t h a t h a v e c o n s i d e r e d t h e

a p p l i c a t i o n o f s t a t e s t a t u t e s p r o v i d i n g f o r a t t o r n e y s ’ f

e e s i n m a r i t i m e c a s e s h a v e

a l s o c o n c l u d e d u n i f

o r m i t y i s a n i m p o r t a n t i n t e r e s t

. S e e S o s e b e e v

. R a t h

, 8 9 3 F

. 2 d

5 4

, 5 6

- 5 7 ( 3 d C i r

. 1 9 9 0 ) ; T e x a s A & M R e s e a r c h F o u n d

. v

. M a g n a T r a n s p

. , I n c

. ,

3 3 8 F

. 3 d 3 9 4

, 4 0 6 ( 5 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 3 ) ; G a r a n

, I n c

. v

. M / V A i v i k

, 9 0 7 F

. S u p p

. 3 9 7

, 4 0 1

( S

. D

. F l a

. 1 9 9 5 )

. A l t h o u g h I c o n c u r t h e G P P A c a n n o t s u p p l e m e n t a d m i r a l t y l a w i n

t h i s c a s e

, I w o u l d c o n c l u d e i t s a p p l i c a t i o n w o u l d d i s r u p t t h e p r o p e r h a r m o n y a n d

u n i f o r m i t y o f a d m i r a l t y l a w

.

19