FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J ULY 25, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble J . Owen F orre ster, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Geor g ia, sitting by

desig nation. [ PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1361 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 06-000 17-CV- C BOA RD OF CO MMISS IO NE RS O F THE ORLEA

NS LEVEE DISTRICT, Pl ai nt iff -Co un te r-Defe nd an t-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us M/V B EL LE OF ORLE AN S, Defen da nt -Co un te r-Cl ai m an t-Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern District of Alabam a

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 25 , 200 8) Before ED MON DS ON , C hief Judge, H ULL, Circuit Judge, and FO RRE ST ER , * District Judge.Bd. of Comm’rs v. M/V Be lle of Orleans , 439 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (S.D. Ala. 2006) . 1 2 FO RRE ST ER , D istrict Judg e: Appe llant, the Bo ar d of

Co m m iss ion er s of

the O rl eans L ev ee D istri ct ( “ the Bo ar d” ), appe al s f

ro m the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r gr an tin g Appe lle e, M/V Be lle of Or leans’ , m otion to dism iss for lack of adm iralty j urisdictio n and from

the district co urt’ s or de r de ny ing Appe lle e’ s R ule 59( e) m oti on t o a lte r, a m en d or va cate the or de r to d ism iss . T he Bo ar d so ught ( 1) a m ar iti m e lie n a ga ins t the Be lle of 1 Or leans to secure pay

m ent for dockage, whar fage, utilities, and other charges pur suant t o ale as e be tw ee n th e Bo ar d and the Be lle of O rl eans’ ow ne rs , Be lle of O rl eans, L . L . C. , and ( 2) dam ag es r es ult ing f ro m the Be lle of

O rl eans’ c oll isi on w iththe pie rs , doc ks, and o the r str uc tur es of

S outh S hor e H ar

bor Mari na( “ the Mari na ”) dur ing H ur

ri cane K atri na ’ s landf

al l. T he dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound that the Be lle of O rl eans w as not

ave sse l, that the le as e be tw ee n th e Bo ar d and B el le of O rl eans, L . L . C. , w as not

am ar iti m e co ntr ac t, and the re fo re , it ha d a dm ir al ty j urisdictio n over neither the Board’ s tort claim nor its contract claim . The district co ur t d en ie d t he Bo ardrel ie f un de r Ru le 59 (e). For the re asons set forth below, w e A FFI RM INPA RT AN D REV ER SE IN PA RT the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r an d ho ld tha t ( 1) the Be lle of O rl eans i s a“ ve sse l” fo r pur pose s of e sta bli shi ng a dm ir al ty

j ur isd ic tio n; ( 2) the dis tr ic t c ourt i m pr ope rl y3

de te rm ine d th at

it la ck ed a dm ir al ty

j ur isd ic tio n ov er

the Bo ar d’ s to rt

c la im ; ( 3) the dis tr ic t c ourt i m

pr ope rl y r ef use d to iss ue aw ri t of

a tta ch m en t un de r Ru le B of the Su p p l emen t al Ru l es ; an d(4 ) t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt p ro p er l y d i s m i s s ed th e B o ar d ’s co ntr ac t c la im

f or la ck of a dm ir al ty

j ur isd ic tio n be ca

use the le as e be tw ee n th e Bo ar d and B el le of

O rl eans, L . L . C. , w hil e part ia lly m ar iti m e in n at

ur e, is not

a m ar iti m e co ntr ac t f

or pur pose s of c re at ing am ar iti m e lie n. I. Back ground A. Fact s In199 5, Be lle of

O rl eans, L . L . C. ( “ the O w ne r” ), pur ch as ed the Be lle of O rl eans, af

ull y ope ratio na l, ste el -hull ed pa ddl ewhe el er

ve sse l, f ro m A vond al e Sh ipy ar d to c ondu ct

gam ing c ru ise s onL ak e Po ntc hartra in. T he Be lle of O rl eans is a “ ri ve rb oa t, ” w hic h L oui sianalawde fi ne s a s apa ddl ewhe el -dri ve n “ ve sse l, ” of at least 150 feet, that carr ies a valid certif icate of inspection from

the Coast Guar d fo r the c ar

ri ag e of am ini m um of 600 pa sse nge rs , and “ is o f suc h ty pe and d es ign so as to replicate as near ly as practica

ble histo ric L ouisi ana river borne steam boat pa ss en ge r ve ss el s o f th e n in et een th cen tu ry era.” La. R.S. § 27 :4 4( 23 ). The Bo ardis th e g ov ern in g a ut ho rit y of t he Orle an s Lev ee Di st ric t, a pol iti ca l su

bdi vis ionof

the S ta te of

L oui siana , w hic h ina ddi tio n to m oni tor ing the dis tr ic t’ s le ve e sy ste m , ow ns and a dm ini ste rs the S outh S hor e H ar bor Mari na( “ theThe B oard e ntere d into the orig inal lease with Star Casino, I nc., on F ebrua ry 18, 1993. 2 On August 27, 1993, the parties amended the le ase to substitute Showboat Star Partnership for Star Casino and to add a

n additional parc el. Showboat Star Partner ship assigne d and tra nsfer red to Be lle of Orle ans, L .L .C., all its rights, title and interest under the lease on Fe bruar

y 15, 1995, and the pa

rties ag ain amende d the lease . The pa rties amende d the lease and re moved 6D to add 6E, which was 4.68 a cre s. The 3 Boa rd and B elle of O rlea

ns, L .L .C., ex ecute d another lease on J anuar

y 23, 2004 in which the Boa rd agree d to lease the interior of the Marina Ce nter a nd cer tain other e x terior pr operty . The Marina Ce nter re nt was $11,418.91 per quarte r. 4 Mari na ”) . T he O w ne r en te re d in to a L ea se A gr ee m en t ( “ the A gr ee m en t” ) w iththe Bo ar d f or the use of

“ ce rt ai n po rt ion s of

land, w harf

and w at er

bottom in the Mar in a lo cat edon th e So ut h S ho re o f Lak e Po nt ch art rai n.” 2 The original term

of the A greem ent was to run until 200 3, and the parties had four ten-y ear optio ns to renew. T he Agre em ent stated that “ the leased prem ises [wa s] to be used sol ely and exclusivelyfor the operation of a r iverboat ga m ing f ac ili ty , apa sse nge r te rm ina l, r el at ed se rv ic es and atte ndant p ar kin g fa ci lit ie s. ” T he le as ed

pr em ise s in cl ude d f

ive parc el s of

land: ( 1) 0. 854 ac re s, de sc ri be d a s “ [t ] he pr opos ed m oor ing be rth f

or the r ive rb oa t c as ino and the r igh t of e xc lus ive use of

the a dj ac en t w harf

are a” ; ( 2) 0. 418 ac re s, de sc ri be d a s “ the sm all parking area a dja cent to the m ooring b erth”; (3) 2.087 acres, described as

“ [t]he si te of t he pro po se d p as se ng er t erm in al bu il di ng ”; (4) “ ap pr ox im at el y 6.2 ac re [s ] [ of

] und ev el ope d land are a” ; and ( 5) 4. 68 a cr es out of parc el 6E . T he

3 A gr ee m en t c al le d f

or aquart er ly

r en t, w ithan a ddi tio na l paym en t of f ive pe rc en tThe Agree ment provided: 4 B. The L essee shall be re quired to pay for a ll improvements to the L ease d Property

require d to acc ommodate its total operation including w ater , elec trical, sew era g e, dra inag e or othe r ser vices. A l l l e a s e s i t e s w i l l b e m e t e r e d s e p ar at e l y. Sho uld the L e sse e at any

tim e vio late any

of the c on dit ion s o f t

his 5 lease , including f

ailure to pa

y rent, or disc ontinue use of the premises for

the purpose f

or which the y

are rente d, or fa il to pay other e x penses a ssumed under this lease , punctually at maturity , as stipulated, and should violation continue for a period of f

ifteen ( 15) day s after written notice ha s been g iven L essee , then, at the option of the L essor, the r ent for the whole unexpired term of this lease at once be comes due and exigible; and L essor shall have the furthe r op tio n at on c e to d e mand the e nti re re nt f

or the wh ole te rm , o r t o imm e diate ly

c anc e l th is l e a se , a ll w ith out putti ngL e sse e in d e fa ult , L essee to remain re sponsible for all dama g es or losses suff ere d by L essor, L essee here by

assentinghere to and expressly waivingthe leg al notices to vac ate the pr emises. X X I. 6 Both pa

rties, irre spective of

any neg lige nce whatsoeve r on the pa rt of either party , mutually

ag ree to hold one another completely

fre e and har mless from any

loss or damag e to one a

nother’s business or proper ty , if said loss or damag e is, would be, or c ould be, totally or partially cover ed by

any ty pe of r eal or

persona l property

insurance and/or time ele ment cover ag e (business inter ruption, profits and commissions, l ease hold or rent) payable to either party as an ins ur e d, and

bo th p art ie s f

ur the r a g re e to w a ive any

and a ll r ig hts of su br og atio n o r r e c ov e ry

a g a ins t on e ano the r t

hat w ou ld i nure to the bene fit of their re spective pr operty insurance car

rier( s). XXIV. 5 of the m onthly

gr oss gam ing r ev enue s and w itham ini m um m onthly pe rc en ta ge re nta l. T he A gr ee m en t a lso r equir ed the le sse e to p ay

f or uti lit ie s pr ovi de d to the pr ope rty . T he A gr ee m en t pr ovi de d f or pe na lti es if

the le sse e fa ile d to pay

r en t or 4 dis co nti nue d th e use of

the pr em ise s. T he A gr ee m en t a lso spe ci fi ed howthe 5 p a rt i e s wo u l dh a n d l e an y d a mag e t o p r o p e rt y. 6L e sse e a ssume s f ull re sp on sib ili ty

fo r a ll o pe ratio n o f t

he ri ve rb oat, inc lud ingbe ingawa

re of a ll w e athe r c on dit ion s. XXV. L essee rec ognizes that the premises ar e outside of f lood protection and is [si c] ex posed to hig h tides and hazardous w eathe r which may preva il from time to tim e in L ake Pontcha rtrain. L essor assumes no re sponsibili ty for damag es or other

conseque nces that may result from natural hazards a nd/or the lac k of flood prote ction. In order to be elig ible for Coast Gua rd docume ntation, the Be lle of Orle ans must be a 7 “vesse l,” def

ined by 46 C.F.R. § 67.3 as “e very descr iption of waterc raf

t or other c ontrivance capa ble of be ing use d as a me ans of tra nsportation on water , but does not include airc raf t.” 6 Louisiana law perm its “ riverboat” gam ing on certain navigabl e w aters. L a. R. S. 27: 65. T he O w ne r ha d ava lid L oui sianagam ing li ce nse to ope rate the Be lle of Or leans as a r iverboat casino and gam ing establis hm ent. A t the tim e the parties en te re d in to the A gr ee m en t i n 19 95, the lawr equir ed r ive rb oa t c as ino s, inc lud ing the Be lle of

O rl eans, to be c ru isi ng n av iga ble w at er s w he n e nga ge d ingam ing ope ratio ns. I n 20 01, the L oui sianale gis la tur e ab oli she d th e cr uis ing r equir em en ts and stated that gam ing coul d onlyoccur w hen a riverboat w as docksid e. L a. R. S. 27:6 5(B)( 1)(b). In com

pliance with the law , the B elle of O rleans conducted ga m ing c ru ise s onL ak e Po ntc hartra in f ro m 199 5 to 200 1 and c ondu ct ed a ll ga m in g d oc ks id e fro m

20 01 un ti l t he oc cu rren ce o f Hurric an e Katrin a in 20 05 . T he Be lle of

O rl eans w as sub

j ec t t o C oa st Guard

c er tif ic at ionand ins pe ct ion . I n 20 01, the O w ne r se nt a le tte r to the Co as t G uard ind ic at ing that the 7 Be lle of O rl eans w oul d no lon ge r be c ondu ct ing c ru ise s and w oul d be r em ai nin g7

doc ksi de a t a ll tim es . T he Co as t G uard r ed uc ed the Be lle of

O rl eans’ m an nin g re qui re m en ts b as ed

upo n he r ow ne r’ s “ state d in te nt t o op er at e in a c ont inu ousl y m oor ed status . ” T he Co as t Guard li m ite d th e Be lle of

O rl eans t o “pe rm an en tly m oor ed ope ratio ns” but

did not pr ohi bit the Be lle of

O rl eans f ro m navig at ing in the f uture . T he Co as t G uard ’ s le tte r state d th at “ shou ld the ve sse l r et

ur n to unde rw ay pa sse nge r se rv ic e, [ it w oul d] be r equir ed to showc om

pli an ce w itha ll ap pli ca ble r eg ulatio ns f

or ope ratio n onaspe ci fi c ro ute int en de d and c om ply w ith standard m an nin g r equir em en ts. ” T he Be lle of O rl eans m ai nta ine d ac ap ta in and a cr ewabr oa d and m ai nta ine d he r en gin es , ge ne rator s, and e qui pm en t i n w orkin g or de r at a ll tim es pr ior

to the landf

al l of H ur ri cane K atri nain 2005 . When the Belle of O rleans began operating docks ide in 200 1, her owners ad de d st ee l c ab le s to he r m oor ing sy ste m and atta ch ed

e le ctri ca l, c om

put er , and phon e ca ble s f ro m asho re -s ide sourc e. T he Be lle of O rl eans b eg anr ec ei vin g wate r in bu lkfro m

a sh or e-s id e so ur ce an d b eg an pu m pi ng he r se wag e to sh or e. The a ffidavit of the Belle of Or leans’ chief e ngin eer, Mr. Franklin , c haracte rized th e Bel le of Orl ean s at th is ti m e as “pe rm an en tl y m oo red ” an d “ ou t o f op erat io n.” By contrast, the a ffidavit of Mr. Maurea u, the H arborm aster of the Marina, ch ar ac te ri ze d th e Be lle of O rl eans a s “ m oor ed

w ithr ope s and c ab le s c ust om ar y to8

a fully operational vessel of her size, and . . . not perm anently aff ixed to th e dock or restricte d in any

way from being capable of navigation .” O n Augus t 29 , 200 5, H ur ri cane K atri nam ad e its landf al l i n N ewO rl eans, Louisiana. South Shore Har bor is located below the Industrial Canal in Ne w Or leans Ea st in an area that w as heavily flooded and dam aged during Katrina. D ur ing the hur

ri cane , the Be lle of

O rl eans b ro ke loo se f

ro m he r m oor ing s, and the Bo ar d c la im s sh e ca

use d dam ag e to the Mari nadoc k and f ac ili tie s. T he Be lle of O rl eans a lso sus ta ine d se ri ous da m ag es he rs el f, r en de ri ng h er inc ap ab le of continu ing op erations without sig nificant repairs. T here w ere no repair fa cilities available in NewOr leans to do th e w ork. T he closest ship y ard w ith the necessary ca pabil iti es w as Be nde r Sh ipy ar d inMo bil e, A la ba m a. O n D ec em

be r 30, 200 5, the Owner engaged two tugboats to tow the Be lle of O rleans fr om Southsh ore H ar bor to Be nde r Sh ipy ar d. A s ar es ult of K atri na , the O w ne r al so s top pe d pay ing rent to the Board. T he Belle of O rleans re m ains in Mob ile. When her repair s are co m ple te , the O w ne r plans t o to wthe Be lle of O rl eans b ac k to A m el ia , L oui siana an d c ont inu e to u se he r as adoc ksi de r ive rb oa t c as ino .The B oard a lso filed an in personam su it a g a ins t B e lle of Or le ans , L .L .C. , in

the Civ il 8 District Court for the Par ish of Orlea ns on J anuar

y 11, 2006. That suit is based on state lawand seeks to re cover

past due re nt and to enfor ce the Boa rd’s “ L essor’s Privileg e” thr oug h a L ouisiana state law

writ of seque stration. The c omplaint was later a mended to add a

claim for damag e ca

used whe n the B elle of O rlea ns broke he r mooring s. That litigation is pendingin New Orlea ns, where the def

endant ha s appea

red, a nswere d, and counte rcla imed. 9 B. Pr ocedur al History On January

13, 2006, the Board instituted an action in the Southern District of Alab am a ag ai ns t t he Bel le of Orl ean s, in rem , to en fo rc e a m ar iti m e lie n. 8 Count One sough t paym ent of dockage, wharfage, utilities andother charges inc ur re d by the O w ne r pur suant t o th e A gr ee m en t be tw ee n th e part ie s, and C ount Tw o soug ht dam ages caused w hen the Belle of O rleans collided with structures at th e Ma rin a dur in g Hu rri can e Kat rin a’s la nd fal l. Pu rs ua nt to an ord er o f arre st , a U nit ed S ta te s M ar sha l arr es te d th e Be lle of O rl eans o n January

23, 200 6. B el le of O rl eans, L . L . C. , f

ile d ac la im

a s th e Be lle of

O rl eans’ ow ne r on J anuary 30, 200 6, an d r eque ste d apos t- ar

re st h eari ng unde r supp le m en ta l a dm ir al ty r ule E (4 )( f) in or de r to h av e the c ourt f

ix the a m ount

of se curi ty ne ce ssary

to ga in r el ea se of

the Be lle of O rl eans. T he c ourt he ld a he ar ing on F eb ru ar

y 7, 200 6, by

te le phon e an d en te re d an or de r te m

por ar ily se tti ng s ec ur ity

in the a m ount

of $1. 3 m ill ionto ensure that the Owner did not default on its ship m ortgage. T he Marshal re ceived awr i to f d i s c h a r g e f

o r th e r e l e a s e o f

th e B e l l e o f

Or l e a n s th e s a me d a y.10

The B oard filed an am ended com plaint on Marc h 23, 2006 , which includ ed in rem cl ai m s a ga ins t the Be lle of O rl eans and in pe rs on am cl ai m s a ga ins t the O w ne r, and s ough t a

w ri t of f or ei gn atta ch m en t purs uant t o A dm ir al ty Su ppl em en ta l R

ule B ag ai nst

pr ope rty of Be lle of O rl eans, L . L . C. , loc at ed

in the dis tr ic t, inc lud ing the Be lle of O rl eans. T he a m en de d c om pla int de m an de d ( 1) $1, 603, 945. 00 i n unpa id f ee s in curr ed

pur suant t o th e A gr ee m en t; (2 ) $20, 608, 236. 00 i n unpa id r en t un de r the A gr ee m en t; an d ( 3) $1, 550, 000. 00 i n da m ag es c au se d w he n th e Be lle of O rl eans c oll ide d w ithstr uc tur es a t the Mari na as ar es ult of the O w ne r’ s ne gli ge nc e an d m ism an ag em en t i n it s m oor ing and $175 ,000 in consequ ential dam ages. On the sam e day , B elle of O rleans filed an an sw er to the Bo ar d’ s or igi na l c om pla int and a sse rt ed

ac ount er cl ai m , and the m ag istrate j udge c ondu ct ed af oll ow -u p po st- ar re st h eari ng. I n it s m em or an dum re gard ing the pos t- ar

re st h eari ng, Be lle of

O rl eans, L . L . C. , a s owne r of the Be lle of Or leans, disputed the m erits of the Boar d’ s claim , disputed the existence of a m aritim e lien and adm iralty j urisdictio n, and re quested that th e court either r educe o r r e tu rn th e $ 1 . 3 mi l l i o n s e c u r i t y. InApr il 2006 , a t the r eque st o f the c ourt, both part ie s br ie fe d th e iss ue of w he the r the Be lle of

O rl eans w as a“ ve sse l” f or pur pose s of de te rm ini ng a dm ir al ty j ur isd ic tio n. T he f

oll ow ing m onth, the part ie s c onse nte d to have am ag istrate11

j udge pr es ide ove r al l pr oc ee din gs, and h e iss ue d an or de r on M ay 25, dis m iss ing the Bo ar d’ s c om

pla int f or la ck of a dm ir al ty

j ur isd ic tio n and h old ing that the Board’ s m otion for Rule B attachm ent shou ld not issue. In June, the Board filed its 59(e) m otion to vacate the May order, and the court denied it. T he Board filed it s n ot ic e o f ap pe al on Ju ne 26 , 20 06 . II. D isc us sio n W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r dis m iss ing the c as e fo r la ck of adm ir al ty j ur isd ic tio n de novo . W

ilk ins v . Co m m ’l

I nv . T rus t C orp. , 153 F . 3d 1273 , 1276 (11th Cir. 1998). Article III , S ection 2, of the U nited States Co nst itu tio n st at es that the j udi ci al pow er of the U nit ed

S ta te s sh al l e xte nd “ to a ll cas es of a dm ira lt y

an d m ari ti m e juri sd ic ti on .” U.S. Con st . art . III, § 2, cl . 2. Pursuant to that grant of jurisdiction, Congress vested dist rict courts w ith origin al a n de x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r “[ a ]n y c i v i l c a s e o f

a d mi r a l t y o r

mar i t i me j urisdictio n, saving to su itors in all cases all other rem edies to which they are otherwise entitled.” Sea Vessel, Inc. v. Re yes , 23 F . 3d 3 45, 348 ( 11th C ir . 199 4) (quotin g 28 U.S .C. § 1333 (1)). T he Suprem e Court and this Circuit have adopted an “ expansiv e view” of adm iralty j urisdictio n to provi de for the uniform ap pl ic at io n o f ge ne ral m ari ti m e la w. See D oe v. Celebrity Cruises, I nc. , 394 F . 3d 891, 901-02 (11th Cir. 2004) (T he “ Suprem e Court has rec ently taken anThe district cour t made cle ar that it based its decision to deny admiralty

jurisdiction 9 larg ely on its determination that the B elle of O rlea ns was not a ve ssel. The district cour t stated that if the B elle of O rlea

ns is not a vessel, “the Court’ s preliminary decision to g rant the writ of seizure and ha

ve the [Be lle of Orle ans] arre sted” would be incorre ct. Bd. of Comm’rs of the Orleans Leve e Dist. v. M/V Be lle of Orleans , 439 F. Supp. 2d 1178, 1192 (S.D. Ala. 2006) . The court a lso stated that “non-ve ssel status would take aw ay any and all mar itime flavor fr om the le a se a g re e me nts su e d u

po n” and “ the re by e sta bli shthat th is C ourt

la c ks a dmi ra lty

jur isd ic tio n in this matter.” Id. “Plaintiff’s tort cla im asserted a g ainst the defe ndants must, as well, be dismiss ed base d upon the [Belle of Orlea ns’] non-vessel status inasmuch as it is well established that a tort must be committed ‘by a vesse l’ on navig able waters.” Id. at 1200.

12 e x p an s i v e v i e wo f

a d mi r a l t y j u r i s d i c t i o n an ds t a t e dth a ti n mo d e rn mar i t i me co m m er ce ‘ the sho re is nowan art if ic ia l pl ac e to drawali ne . ’ ”) . H er e, w e m ust de te rm ine w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y dis m iss ed

the Bo ar d’ s in p er

sona m tort c la im s and i ts in rem co ntr ac t c la im s f or la ck of a dm ir al ty

j ur isd ic tio n and w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt w as c or re ct in fa ili ng t o or de r atta ch m en t of the Be lle of O rl eans p ur suant t o R

ule B of the S uppl em en ta l R

ule s of Ce rt ai n A dm ir al ty

and Mar it im e Cl ai m s (“ th e Supp le m en ta l Ru le s” ). A . Th e D ef

in it ion of a “V es se l” T he Be lle of

O rl eans’ status a s a“ ve sse l” is cr uc ia l t o e sta

bli shi ng a dm ir al ty j ur isd ic tio n ov er

both of the Bo ar d’ s c la im s, so w e w ill a ddr es s th is i ssu e fi rs t. 9 O ur de te rm inatio n of

w he the r the Be lle of

O rl eans i s a“ ve sse l” is gui de d by the Su pr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio n in Ste wa rt v . D utra C onst. Co . , 543 U. S. 481 (200 5), an d th e Fi fth C ir cu it’ s de ci sio n in P le ason v . G ulf port Shi pbui ldi ng C

orp. , 221In Bo nn e r v . Ci ty of Pric ha rd, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) ( en banc ), thi s 10 c ourt a do pte d a s b ind ingpr e c e de nt a ll d e c isi on s o f t he fo rm e r F if

th C ir c uit ha nd e d d own p ri or

to October 1, 1981. 46 U.S.C. § 971 is now codified at 46 U.S.C. § 31342, which states that those providing 11 nece ssaries to a ve ssel are entitled to a maritime lien ag ainst that vessel enf orce able in rem . 13 F. 2d 6 21 ( 5thCi r. 195 5) , w hic h a ddr es se d pr ec ise ly the le ga l i ssu e w e fa ce in the instant case. 10 In P le ason , the c ourt a ddr es se d w he the r the Caro l A nn, aN av y sa lva ge and re pa ir ve sse l w hic h ha d be enc onve rt ed int o ashr im

p- pr oc es sin g pl an t, w as a

“ ve ss el ” su bjec t t o a m ari ti m e li en un de r 46 U.S.C. § 9 71 . 22 1 F .2dat 6 23 . 11 In195 1, the Ca

ro l A nn w as “ gr ound ed

in sha llo ww at er

[ ne ar Be liz e] and her shaft alley s and engin e room we re f lood ed.” Id. at

622 . S he w as f

loate d and tow ed to T ex as w he re the li enc la im an t f ur nis he d th e m at er ia ls and p er fo rm ed the se rv ic es ne ce ssary

to fu lly c onve rt the Caro l A nn i nto ashr im p- pr oc es sin g pl an t. Id . A t the ti m e of

the r ep ai rs , the Caro l A nn w as in the f oll ow ing c ondi tio n: [H ] er pr ope lle rs and p ro pe lle r sha ft s ha d be enr em ove d; s he ha d no cr ew ; no ne of

he r m ac hin er

y w as in ope ratio n; s he ha d no li ght , he at , or pow er in ope ratio n; h er

m ai n e ngi ne s ha d be enc om ple te ly rem oved; and h er steer ing apparatus, with the exce ption of the rudder, ha d be enr em ove d and s old ; he r supe rs tr uc tur e an d m as ts w er e int ac t; her navigation li ghts were in place , though no t operable; her co m partm en ta tio n, inc lud ing c ar go h old s, w as int ac t; an d sh e co nta ine d inhe r cr ewquart er s and e lse w he re som e ar tic le s of fu rn is hi ng , in cl ud in g b un ks , tab le s, ch ai rs an d s to ve s.14

Id. at 622 -2 3. F oll ow ing he r re pa ir s, the Caro l A nn w as tow ed a cr oss the G ulf

of Me xic o, w ith out

c re w , m oti ve pow er , or

ope rativ e ste er ing de vic e; w as m oor ed to a doc k by ste el c ab le s and r ope s; r ec ei ve d te le phon e an d e le ctri c lin es f ro m land; an d w as use d to r ec ei ve “ shr im p f ro m tr aw le rs f

or pr oc es sin g, f

re ez ing , sto ri ng an d r es al e in c om

m er ce , in the sam e m an ne r as asim ilar plant w oul d op er at e on land.” Id. at

623 . T he c ourt e m

pha siz ed the phr as e “ ca

pable of be ing use d” w ith in the de fi nit ionof

ve sse l i n 1 U . S. C. § 3, and h el d: The “ Carol A nn” was an artificial c ontrivance capable of being used as a m ean s o f wat er t ran sp or ta ti on . It was afl oa t. . . . [I] t was to wed .

. . . I t ha d a

de ck ; i t ha d c ab ins , it

ha d su pe rs tr uc tur e. I t ha d no m otive po we r of its own; no steering m echanism ; but it definit ely wa s cap ab le of b ei ng us edas a m ean s o f tr an sp or ta ti on un de r to w. . . . [I ] t i s pl ai n to us tha t the “ Caro l A nn” w as a“ ve sse l” sub j ec t t o a mar i t i me l i e n , e n f

o r c e ab l e b y s u i ti n r e m. Id. H er e, the Be lle of

O rl eans, too , w as m oor ed to the doc k w ithste el c ab le s, re ce ive d ut ili ty

li ne s f ro m land, and e nga ge d inabus ine ss tha t c oul d have phy sic al ly , if

not le ga lly , be enc ondu ct ed

on s hor e; y et , und er

the r ea soni ng o f P le ason , thi s m ad e he r no l es s ave sse l. L ike the Caro l A nn, the Be lle of O rl eans w as c er ta inl y a fl oa t; she w as tow ed

a cr oss the G ulf

of Me xic o f or pur pose s of re pa ir ; and s he ha d ade ck , c ab ins , and s upe rs tr uc tur e. F urthe r, unl ike the Caro l A nn, the Be lle of

O rl eans w as c ap ab le of

be ing use d a s am eans o f tr an spor ta tio n“Any seama n who shall suffe r per sonal injury in the course of his employ ment may , at 12 his election, maintain an a ction for da mag es at law , with the rig ht of trial by jury , and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the c ommon-law rig ht or reme dy in case s of per sonal injury to railway

employ ees sha ll apply .” 46 U.S.C. App. § 688(a) .

15 wi tho ut t he ass istanc e of tow , operated with a ca ptain and a crewaboard, and had m aintained her engines, generators, and equipm ent in working order at all tim es p r i o r t o Hu rr i c a n e Ka t r i n a . Th u s , i f we ar e t o b e b o u n db y Plea so n, the Be lle of Orle an s i s a “ ve ss el ” su bjec t t o m ari ti m e li en . The district court and the Be lle of O rleans fa il to cite P le ason an d r el y he av ily on a li ne of F if th C ir cu it ca se s be gin nin g w ith P av one v . M iss iss ipp i R iv er boat

A m use m en t C

orp. , 52 F.3d 56 0 (5 th Cir . 19 95 ). Pavone aro se when two em pl oyees, s ta ti on edon a m oo red , do ck si de cas in o i n B il ox i, Mi ss is si pp i, k no wn as the Biloxi Belle filed suit und er the Jones Ac t, 46 U .S .C. App. § 688, to recover for inj uries they

rec eived while at w ork. 52 F.3d at 562-63. T he court’ s Jones 12 Act a na lysis req ui reditto de te rm in e whe th er t he Bil ox i Be ll e was a ve ss el . T he Bi lox i B el le w as c onstru ct ed a s abarg e w itha“ ste el hul l, ar ak ed bow to facilitate its being towed, bilge pum ps, functional ballast tanks , an auxiliary generator to supplyem ergency electr ical power , and below-deck features includi ng sto rage f

acilities and a galley

for em ploy ee m eals and work bre aks.” Id . at 564 . T he Bi lox i B el le w as Co as t G uard c er tif ie d, y et she “ ha [d ] no e ngi ne , no16

captain, no navigational aids , no cr ew quarters and no lifesaving equi pm ent.” Id . at 564-65. He r pilot hou se, antiqu e w heel, ring buo y s, and nonfunction al paddlewheel w ere purely for visual eff

ect and to allow her

to be certifie d und er Lou is ia na ’s gam in g l aws . Id. [T ] he Biloxi Belle wa s m oored to sho re by lines tied to su nken steel py lon s th at

w er e fi lle d w ithc onc re te . T he f ir st l ev el of

the Bi lox i Belle w as connected to the pier by steel ram ps, and the second level w as j oin ed

to a shor e- sid e bui ldi ng. I n a ddi tio n, num er ous shor e- sid e utilitylines – telephon e, electr ic, gas, sew er, dom estic fire and wate r, ca ble T V , and c om

put er – w er e co nne ct ed

pe rm an en tly

( or a t l ea st ind ef ini te ly ) to the Bi lox i B el le . O nly by r em ovi ng s te el pin s f

ro m the r am ps and l ettin g lo ose a ll lin es and c ab le s c oul d th e Bi lox i B el le be disconn ected fr om

the shore. Id . T he F if th C ir cu it as sum ed “a rgue ndo that [ the Bi lox i B el le ] w as bui lt an d use d f or non ve sse l purp ose s, w as m oor ed oth er than te m por ar ily to the bank, and either had been ‘ withdraw n from navigation ’ or w as being used as a ‘ work platform ,’ or both.” Id. at 568 . T he F if th C ir cu it ap pli ed

it s e xis tin g Jo ne s A ct

pr ec ed en t w ithr eg ar d to cr af ts n o lo nge r “ in n av igatio n” or se rv ing a s “ w ork pl at fo rm s” and f oc use d onthe

“ pur pose f or w hic h th e cr af

t [ w as ] c onstru ct ed

and the bus ine ss i n w hic h it is engaged.” Id. at

570 . U sin g th is p re ce de nt the c ourt he ld: Whe n th e undi sput ed

f ac ts o f the ins tant c as es are plu gge d in to ( 1) the D es pe r/H aw n w ith dr awn- fr om -n av igatio n f ac tor s, or ( 2) the B ernard /G re m ill ion work-platform attributes, or both, and ar eDespe r v. Starved R ock F erry Co. , 3 42 U. S. 1 87 (1 95 2) , q uo te d f ro m Hawn v. Am. S.S. 13 Co. , 107 F.2d 999, 1000 ( 2d Cir. 1939), and discussed the conce pts “withdrawn f rom navig ation” and “w ork platfor

m” and how the y

help to distinguish “cr aft or struc tures that mee t the g ener al dictionary definition of ‘ve ssel’ fr om those that meet Jones Act or the g ener al maritime law vessel status at a g iven time.” Pavone , 52 F.3d at 569. Bernard v. Binnings Constr. Co. , 741 F.2d 824 ( 5th Cir. 1984), sets out a three -par t test to address wor

k platform ca ses. Gremillion v. Gulf Coast C

atering Co. , 904 F.2d 290 ( 5th Cir. 1990), elabora tes on the test in Be rn ar

d . Id. at 569-70. Th e oth e r c a se s c ite d b y the B e lle of

Or le ans are e qu a lly

un pe rs ua siv e be c a

us e the y re ly 14 on Pavone or involve fa ctually dissimi lar waterc raf

t. See M artin v. Boyd Gaming Corp. , 374 F.3d 375, 377 ( 5th Cir. 2004) (re lying on Pavone and not examining the c asino’s pra ctical navig a bil ity ); Du nk lin v . Lo us ian a R iv e rb oa t G am ing P’ sh ip , 260 F.3d 621 ( 5th Cir. 2001) (per c ur iam) (s ame ); He rtz

v . Tr e as ur e Che

st C as ino , L. L.C. , 274 F. Supp. 2d 795, 800 (E.D. L a. 20 03 ) ( same ); Davis v. Play ers Lake Charles Rive rboat, Inc. , 74 F. Supp. 2d 675, 676 (W.D. L a. 19 99 ) ( same ); D C

an aleFo od

Se rv s. , I nc . v . S pla sh Casino & Resort, Inc. , No. 2:95CV70-B -A, 1995 WL1945520 (N.D. Miss. Oct. 27, 1995) (involving a structure that had no mea ns of propulsion, rudders, life savingequipment, cr ew qua rters, g ener ators or na

vigational equipment); King v. President Rive rboat Casi no-Mississippi, Inc. , 894 F. Supp. 1008, 1011 (S.D. Miss. 1995) (n ot l oo kin gat pr a c tic a l na vig a bil ity ); In re Biloxi Casino Belle, Inc . , 176 B.R. 427, 431 (B ankr. S.D. Miss. 1995) (involving a struc ture that ha d no means of pr opulsion or steeringand that wa s not located on a

navig able water wa

y ). 17 co m pare d to the f

unc tio na l and n au tic al c hara ct er ist ic s and m oor ing statuses of the various craft that in earlier cases w ere held as a m atter of lawto be non ve sse ls f

or Jon es A ct

pur pose s, the re c anbe li ttl e doub t that indefinitelym oored, shore-side, floating casinos , such as the Bi lox i B el le , m

ust be a dde d to that l ist . Id. at 570 . D es pit e the arg um en ts o f the Bo ar d and the dis tr ic t c ourt, w e fi nd 13 Pavone to be factually

and legally

distin guish able from

the instant case. 14 Leg al ly, Pavone a r o s e u n d e r th e J o n e s A c tr a t h e r

th a n u n d e r

amar i t i me co nt ract gi vi ng ris e to a m ari ti m e li en . See Ste wa rt , 543 U. S. at 496 (notin g that courts have histo rically

tended to m ore narr owly construe the definition of a vessel in J one s A ct

c as es ); Bunge Corp. v. Fre eport Marine Repair, Inc. , 240 F . 3d 9 19,No cour t has eve r expressly

overr uled Pleason , a

nd the F if th C ir c uit c ontin ue d to 15 expli citly cite it until the tim e of the circ uit spli t in 1981. See J ones v. O ne Fifty Foot Gulfstar Motor Sailing Y

acht , 625 F.2d 44, 47 ( 5th Cir. 1980) (holding that a y acht that wa s test sailed 18 9 2 5 n . 7 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( “[ A ]t l e a s ttw e n t y- f o u r mar i t i me c a s e s o r

mar i t i me re l at ed s t at u t es s u g g es ts l i g h t l y d i ff er en two rd i n g s fo r t h e d ef i n i t i o n o f v es s el . We re fu se to ad opt

the de fi nit ionof

ve sse l tha t F re ep ort ur ge s, a s it is ba se d on unr el at ed statut es . ”) . F urthe r, the c ourt a ssu m ed argu en do in apply ing its Jones Ac t analy sis that th e Biloxi Belle “ wa s built and used for nonv essel purposes.” P av one , 52 F . 3d at 56 8. Whil e thi s a ssu m pti on m igh t have be enappr opr ia te f or the Biloxi Belle, it is not for the Belle of Or leans, which was built as a passenger ve sse l and c ru ise d onL ak e Po ntc hartra in f ro m 199 5 th ro ugh 2001 . F ac tua lly , the Bi lo xi Bel le was a m

uc h d iff eren t wat ercr aftth an th e Bel le of Orl ean s i n q ue st io n. The B elle of O rleans’ pilot h ouse, antique wheel, ring buoy s, and paddlewheel we re f unction ing rather than purely for visual eff

ect. She c ouldoperate under her ow n po w er

r athe r than pure ly

by tow ; sh e m ai nta ine d an e ngi ne , aste er ing m echanism , and a captain; and further, she m aintained a reduced m aritim e cr ew rat he r th an a m ere c as in o s ta ff. W e ar e boun d to f

oll owthe pane l’ s de ci sio n in P le ason , a s it a ddr es se s th e sa m e iss ue of

law , unl es s it

ha s be enove rr

ule d by thi s c ourt si tti ng en banc or by th e Supr em e Co ur t o f th e Uni te d S ta te s. W e m ay on ly decl in e to fol lo w P le ason 15wa s a

ve sse l e ve n th ou g h it

wa s late r p la c e d in

dr y sto ra g e ); M/ V M

ar ifa xv . M c Cro ry , 391 F.2d 90 9, 91 0 ( 5th

Cir . 1 96 8) (p e r c ur iam) (“ Ev e n f if te e n ye ars of

re sti ngine rt ia

do e s n ot n e c e ssa

ri ly de str oy navig a bil ity .” ); Miami River Boat Yar d, Inc. v . 60' Houseboat , 3 90 F .2 d 5 96 , 5 97 (5 th Cir . 1 96 8) (h old ingthat a ho us e bo at w hic h h a s “ no mot ive po we r a nd mus t, a s w ou ld t

he mos t low ly of dumb b arg e s, be tow e d” is n ot d e pr ive d o f h e r s tatus a s a ve sse l) . 19 if suc h a ct ionis ne ce ssary

to giv e fu ll ef

fe ct to the r at ion al e of

an in te rv en ing de ci si on of t he Supr em e Co ur t. Lu fk in v . M cC all um , 956 F . 2d 1 104, 110 7- 08 (1 1thCi r. 199 2) . B othpart ie s c ont en d th at the S upr em e Co urt’ s r ec en t de ci sio n in Ste wa rt v . D utra C

onst r. Co . , 543 U . S. 481 ( 2005 ), is re le vant t o th is m atte r. T he Bo ar d c ont en ds tha t Ste wa rt en dor se s th e an al y sis in P le ason , w hil e the Be lle of O rl eans c ont en ds and the dis tr ic t c ourt a gr ee d th at Ste wa rt em br ac es the hol din g in P av one . Se e B d. of Co m m ’r s of the O rle ans Le ve e D ist . v . M /V B el le of O rle ans , 439 F. S upp. 2d at 11 93 ( “ far fr om ove rr uli ng P av one v . M

iss iss ipp i R iv er boat

A m use m en t C

orp ., 52 F.3d 56 0 (5 th Cir . 19 95 ) an d i ts pro ge ny, Ste wa rt [5 43 U . S. a t 49 4] e m

br ac ed P av one , and i ts s em i- pe rm an en tly f loatin g c as ino , a s a cl ear an d in dis put ab le e xa m ple of anon -v es se l, that i s, aw at er cr af t no t c ap ab le of being us ed for m aritim e transport in any m eaningful m anner. ”); Appellant’s Br ief at 25 (“ In rea ching its conclusion , the P le ason co urt e nga ge d inthe ana ly sis dic ta te d f orty y ea rs la te r [b y ] the U nit ed

S ta te s S upr em e Co urt i n Ste wa rt – w he the r the c ra ft

w as c ap ab le of

be ing use d a s am eans o f tr an spor ta tio n on water. ”).20

Ste wa rt ad dr es se d “ w he the r a dr ed ge [ w as ] a‘ ve sse l’ und er § 2( 3) (G ) of

the L ongs hor e an d H ar

bor W orke rs ’ Co m

pe nsa tio n A ct

( L H W CA ), 44 S ta t. ( Pt . 2) 1425 , a s added by

§ 2(a) of Pub. L . 98-426, 33 U. S. C. § 902 (3)(G ). ” 543 U. S. at 48 4. Ste wa rt’

s co re hol din gs w er e that ( 1) 1 U . S. C. § 3 is a c odi fi catio n of

the ge ne ra l m ar iti m e lawand p ro vid es the de fi nit ionof “ ve sse l” thr ough out

the U nit ed S ta te s C ode ; and ( 2) “ [u ] nde r § 3, a‘ ve sse l’ is an y w at er cr af

t pr ac tic al ly ca pable of m ar iti m e tr an spor

ta tio n, r eg ar dle ss o f its pr im ar y pur pose or state of transit at a particular

m om ent.” Id. at 490, 497. T he Suprem e Court m ade clear that the f oc us o f the “ ve sse l” inquir y is the c ra ft ’ s c ap ab ili ty , not it s pr es en t us e or statio n; “ [a ] shi p lo ng l odge d inadr y doc k or shi py ar d c ana ga in b e put to se a, no le ss than on e pe rm an en tly m oor ed to shor e or

the oc ean f

loo r can be c ut l oose and m ad e to s ai l. T he que sti on r em ai ns i n a ll ca se s w he the r the w at er cr af t’ s us e ‘ as a m eans of transportation on water’ is a practica l poss ibilityor m erely a theoretica l one.” Id. at

496 . W e ar e unpe rs ua de d by

the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s arg um en t tha t Ste wa rt dictates that w e m ust f oll owthe c ourt i n Pavone an d ho ld tha t a ll m oor ed c as ino s are not vesse ls . T he S upr em e Co urt st at ed : S i mp l y p u t , aw a t e r c r a f

ti s n o t“c ap ab l e o f

b e i n g u s e d ” f

o r mar i t i me transport in any

m eaningful sense if it has been perm anently m oored21

or oth er w ise r en de re d pr ac tic al ly inc ap ab le of

tr an spor ta tio n or m ov em en t. T his dis tin ct ionis se nsi ble : Ashi p and i ts c re wdo n ot m ove in an d out of Jon es Ac t coverage depending on whether the ship is at anchor, d o c k e df o r l o a d i n g o r

u n l o a d i n g , o r

b e rt h e df o r mi n o r r e p a i r s , i n th e s a me w ay that sh ips take n pe rm an en tly out of the w at er a s apr ac tic al m atte r do not rem ain vessels m erely because of the r em ote poss ibilitythat they m ay on e d ay sai l ag ai n. See P av one v . M iss iss ipp i R iv erboat

A m use m en t C

orp. , 52 F.3d 560, 570 (5th Cir. 1995) (floating casino was no long er a vessel w he re it “ w as m oor ed

to the sho re in a se m i- pe rm an en t or ind ef ini te m an ne r” ); Kathrin er v. UN ISEA , I nc. , 975 F . 2d 6 57, 660 ( 9thCi r. 199 2) (f loatin g pr oc es sin g pl an t w as no l onge r a ve sse l w he re a“ larg e ope nin g [h ad be en ] c ut i nto he r hul l, ” re nde ri ng h er inc ap ab le of

m ovi ng o ve r the w at er ). E ve n if

the ge ne ra l m ar iti m e lawha d no t i nf orm ed the m eanin g of § 3, its definition would not sweep w ithin its reach an array of fixed structures not comm onlythoug ht of as capable of being used for w ater tra ns po rt. Ste wa rt , 543 U . S. a t 49 4. T his c itatio n m ust be r ea d inc ont ex t w iththe f ac ts o f P av one , which character ize the Biloxi Belle, a w aterc raft which has never sailed without tow and which is unable to do so, as a “ work platform ” that has been

“ re m ove d f

ro m navig at ion ” an d w as bui lt fo r “ nonv es se l purp ose s. ” I n th is context, the Suprem e Court’ s citation of P av one doe s no thi ng t o bi nd u s to P av one ’s hol din g; r athe r, the S upr em e Co urt si m ply c ite s Pavone fo r the pr inc ipl e that a c ra ft c anr em ai n ou t of

navig at ionlon g e noug h th at it los es it s ve sse l st at

us. Se e id. at 493-94 (There is a “ distin ction drawn by general m aritim e lawbetwee n w at er c ra ft te m por ar ily statio ne d inapart ic ular loc at ionand those pe rm an en tly affi xe d t o s ho re o r res ti ng on th e o cean flo or .”).22

Furthe r, w e be lie ve that Ste wa rt supp orts the ana ly sis w e ap pli ed in P le ason . B othde ci sio ns u se the de fi nit ionof “ ve sse l” f

ound in 1 U . S. C. § 3 an d dir ec t the ir

f oc us t o w he the r a w at er cr af t i s pr ac tic al ly

c ap ab le of

se rv ing a s a m eans of transportation up on water rather than her owner’ s intended u se or her a c tu a l mo b i l i t y a tth e t i me i n qu e s t i o n . H o w e v e r , th e p a r e n t h e t i c a l th e S up r e me Court inserted after P av one , “ floating casino was no lon ger a vessel where it ‘ wa s m oored to the sho re in a sem i-perm anent or indefinite m anner, ’ ” leaves it unclear as to ho w lo ng a craf

t m us t b e m oo redto lo se it s v es se l s ta tu s. Ste wa rt , 543 U. S. at 494 . I n Plea so n, the vessel had been m oored for only a num ber of m onth s when the r el ev an t c la im s to ok p la ce , and s he c ont inu ed to be m oor ed

f or the m aj or ity

of the four y ears while the litig ation was pending. He re, the Belle of Or leans had be enm oor ed

f or f our y ears w he n th e cl ai m s oc curr ed , and s he is de sti ne d to be m oo redag ai n fo ll owi ng he r rep ai rs . Both the Fifth and the Seventh Circuits have addressed the m eaning of

“ pe rm an en tly

m oor ed or oth er w ise r en de re d pr ac tic al ly inc ap ab le of

tr an spor ta tio n or m ove m en t” pos t- Ste wa rt . I n D e La R osa v. St. Ch arl es G am ing Co . , 474 F . 3d 185 (5 th C ir . 200 6) , the F if th C ir cu it en dor se d Pavone’s holdi ng and stated th at

“ [e] ven after Ste wa rt , an i nd efi ni te ly m oo redflo at in g c as in o l ik e th e Cro wn Casino is no t a ‘ vessel’ for purposes of adm iralty j urisdictio n.” Id

. a t 18 8 ( T he23

Cro wn Ca si no ha d c ru is edun ti l 2 00 1 wh en Lou is ia na ch an ge d i ts ga m in g l aws and has been m oored ever since. ). T he court focused on Louisiana gam ing law an d th e ow ne r’ s in te nti on t o c ont inu e ope ratin g a s ac as ino and h el d th at “ al tho ugh the Cr ow n C as ino w as sti ll phy sic al ly c ap ab le of

sa ili ng, suc h ause w as m er el y theoretical. ” Id. at18 7. T he S ev en th C ir cu it ad dr es se d th e iss ue in Tagli er e v. H arrah’ s I ll. Co rp. , 445 F.3d 101 2 (7th Cir. 2006). The court stated, “ there has been no showing that the boat i n our ca se , tho ugh statio nary f or the pa st tw o y ears , is pe rm ane ntl y m oor ed in the Co urt’ s se nse ( dis ab le d f ro m sa ili ng) and i s thus the e qui va le nt o f landf ill ”; the re fo re , the dis tr ic t c ourt c an not dis m iss the c as e fo r la ck of j ur isd ic tio n un le ss the part ie s c ansho wthat the boat w as pe rm an en tly , not in de fin it el y , m oo red . Id . a t 10 14 ( em pha sis in or igi na l) . T he S ev en th C ir cu it an al ogi ze s to the dif

fe re nc e be tw ee n do m ic ile and r es ide nc e an d su gge sts w ith out hol din g th at

aboat m ay

be “pe rm an en tly ” m oor ed “ w he n it s owne r int en ds tha t the boa t w ill ne ve r ag ai n sa il, ” w hil e it m igh t be “ ind ef ini te ly ” m oor ed

“ if he ha s no t y et decided its ultim ate destiny .” Id. at 101 6. Under the language of Ste wa rt , how ever, we find that neither court articulates an appropriate test. Both focus on the int ent of the shipo wner rather than w he the r the boat ha s be en“ re nde re d pr ac tic al ly inc ap ab le of

tr an spor ta tio n orDictionarie s have de fined “ to intend” as “ [t ]o have in mind a fix ed purpose to rea ch a 16 desired obje ctive; to have a s one’s purpose , Blac k ’s Law D ic tio na ry 825 (8th ed. 2004), “purpose ” as “ [t ]hat which is intended” or “ [a] n intention,” Ba lle nti ne ’s Law D ic tio na ry , L e xis L aw Publishing (1969) . 24 m ovem ent.” 543 U.S . at 494. The owner’ s intentio ns with regard to a boat ar e an al ogou s to the boat’ s “pur pose , ” and Ste wa rt cl earl y r ej ec te d any

de fi nit ionof 16

“ ve ss el ” th atrel ie s o n s uc h a pu rp os e. Se e id . a t 49 7 ( “ U nde r § 3, a‘ ve sse l’ is an y watercr aft prac tically

capable of m aritim e transportation, regar dless of its prim ary p u rp o s e . . . .” ). Fu rt h er , s u ch a t es ti s i n co m p at i b l e w i t h th e S up re m e C o u rt ’s fo cu s o n p ro vi di ng un ifo rm it y wit hi n a dm ira lt y

juri sd ic ti on . Ce le bri tyCr uis es , Inc. , 394 F . 3d at 90 2 ( “ [T ] he pur pose be hin d th e ex er ci se of thi s C ourt’ s a dm ir al ty juri sd ic ti on is to pro vi de forth e u ni fo rm ap pl ic at io n o f ge ne ral m ari ti m e la w.”). Under Tagliere an d D e La R osa , aboat m ay e nte r an d le av e adm ir al ty j urisdictio n on th e basis of state lawand the indiv idual tho ught s of the boat owner as to what use of the boat is m ost desirable. A s the Louisiana legislature dem onstrated by

its actions in 2001 , state law can change. Further, if legal navigabil ity

is the test for vessel status, any ship with an expired Coast Guard ce rt if ic at ionbe co m es anon -v es se l, and those w orkin g up on i t and aro und it los e the ir pr ote ct ionund er

the Jon es A ct

or the L H W CA . S uc h ar es ult is cl earl y not wha t t he Supr em e Co ur t i nt en de d. See Ste wa rt , 543 U. S. at 494 (notin g thatSee 17 http:// www.sdmar itime.com/Cont entPag e.asp? ContentI D=197 (“I n 1976, with her restoration complete, the sailingship St ar of India sailed on San Die g o bay for the f irst time in 50 y ear s. The sailingship St ar of India is now the pride of the Maritime Museum of San D ieg o’s flee t of historic ships. She is maintained by a dedic ated group of voluntee rs and skilled cra ftsmen and sa iled at least onc e a year .”). 25 se am endo n ot l ose the ir

pr ote ct ionund er

the Jon es A ct

due to m ino r ch an ge s in sh ip lo cat io n) . Also , an o wne r’s in te nt io ns m ay ch an ge in way s n ev er an ti ci pa te d. W e ne ed loo k no f urthe r than th e St ar

of I ndi a fo r ane xam

ple . I n 19 73, the Southern District of Ca lifornia rej ected the Coast G uard’ s design ation of the Star of I ndi a as pe rm an en tly

m oor ed and h er ow ne r’ s st at em en t tha t he did not int en d to sai l h er ag ai n, an d d ecl ared he r su bjec t t o a dm ira lt y juri sd ic ti on . Lu na v . Sta r of In dia , 356 F . S upp. 59, 66 ( S. D . Ca l. 197 3) ( “ T he f ac t tha t the S tar curr en tly r es ts atdo ck si de de tra ct s n ot at a ll fro m he r co lo rfu l p as t n orhe r fu tu re capa ci ti es .”). A m er e thr ee y ears la te r, the S tar of I ndi a w as put

to se a fo r the f

ir st t im e in f

if ty ye a r s , an ds h e c o n t i n u e s t o s a i l an n u a l l y. 17 W iththi s inm ind , w e w ill pla ce our pr im ar y f oc us, a s Ste wa rt dir ec ts, on w he the r the Be lle of

O rl eans w as “ re nde re d pr ac tic al ly inc ap ab le of

tr an spor ta tio n or m ovem ent” when her

owner m oored her in 2001 . As our analy sis un der P le ason ab ove state s, the Be lle of O rl eans m ai nta ine d f

unc tio nin g m ac hin er

y and wa s capable of m ovin g und er her own power . The district court m ade m inim al26

fa ct ua l f ind ing s, but

it appe ar s th at

a ll he r cr eww oul d have ha d to do w as unm oor he r ca ble s and s tart

up h er e ngi ne and the Be lle of

O rl eans w oul d have be enable to sail. Further , a s she illus trated m ost recently in 200 5, the Be lle of O rleans w as ca pable of m ovi ng o ve r w at er , a lbe it to h er de tr im en t, and w as c ap ab le of be ing tr an spor te d un de r tow . A s su ch , w e hol d th at the Be lle of

O rl eans i s a“ ve sse l” f

or pur pose s of a dm ir al ty

j ur isd ic tio n. B. Th e Bo ar d’ s I

n P e r s o n a m T o r t Cl a i ms T he dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed the Bo ar d’ s to rt

c la im s f or la ck of a dm ir al ty j ur isd ic tio n havin g de te rm ine d th at the y w er e not c om m itt ed “ by ave sse l on navigable waters. ” B d. of Co m m ’r s v . M /V B el le of O rle ans , 439 F . S upp. 2d 1178 , 1200 (S. D. Ala . 2006). W e re verse.

“ [A ] party

seeking to in voke federal a dm iralty j urisdictio n . . . over a tort c l a i m mu s ts a t i s f

y c o n d i t i o n s b o t h o f

l o c a t i o n an do f

c o n n e c t i o n w i t h mar i t i me activity .” Doe v. Celebrity Cruises, I nc. , 394 F . 3d 8 91, 900 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) (quot ing Je rom e B . G ruba rt, I nc . v . G re at L ak

es D re dge & D oc k Co . , 513 U. S. 52 7, 5 34 (19 95 )). T o satis fy the loc at ionte st, the tor

t m ust have oc curr ed

on n av iga

ble w a t e r o r th e i n ju ry s u f f e r e do n l a n dmu s th a v e b e e n c au s e db y a ve ss el on na vi gabl e wat er. W it h re sp ectto th e co nn ect io n t es t, t wo iss ue s m ust be c onsi de re d: (1 ) w he the r, upo n a sse ssm en t of the ge ne ra l f eatur es of the ty pe of a cc ide nt i nvol ve d, the “ inc ide nt h as a27

pot en tia lly

dis ru pti ve im pa ct on m ar iti m e co m

m er ce ;” and ( 2) “ w he the r the ge ne ra l c hara ct er of the a ct ivi ty

giv ing r ise to the i n c i d e n ts h o w s as ub s t a n t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t o tr a d i t i o n a l mar i t i me activity .” Broughto n v. Fla. Int’l U nderwriters, Inc. , 139 F . 3d 8 61, 865 ( 11th C ir . 199 8) (internal citations om itted). W e ap pli ed

the se c ondi tio ns i n B unge Co rp. v . F re ep ort M ari ne R ep air

, Inc. , 240 F . 3d 9 19 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) , w hic h in vol ve d c ir cum stanc es sim ilar to the ca se a t i ssu e. I n B unge , aw at er -b ound c as ino , in he r fi na l st ag es of c onstru ct ion , br oke f re e fr om he r m oor ing s onthe e as t si de of F our Mi le Cr ee k duri ng Hurr icane O pal and struck and dam aged a grain-loading convey or fac ility located on th e wes t s id e o f Fo urMi le Cree k. Id. at 922. W e held that (1) the tort occurr ed on “ navigable waters” and m et the locality test; (2) a par

tially -constructed vessel w hic h br oke f

re e an d dam ag ed

pr ope rty a lon gsi de aw at er

w ay ha d th e pot en tia l t o an d a ct ua lly did dis tur b c om m er ci al a ct ivi ty ; and ( 3) ac oll isi on whic h oc curr ed on navigable waters due to the im perfec t m ooring o f a nearly com plete vessel bore a su bs ta nt ia l re la ti on sh ip to tra di ti on al m ari ti m e act iv it y . H er e, the tor

t c om m itt ed by the f unc tio nin g B el le of

O rl ea ns i s ana log ous to the tor t c om m itt ed by the part ia lly -c onstru ct ed c as ino in Bunge an d c le ar ly sa tis fi es the c ondi tio ns l ai d ou t i n Celebrity Cruises, Inc. , and B roug hto n. T he28

Bel le of Orl ean s was a ve ss el ; s he was o pe rat in g i n S ou th Sh or e Harb or , a na vig ab le w at er

w ay ; sh e br oke f

re e fr om im pe rf ec t m oor ing s; s he ha d th e pot en tia l t o and a ct

ua lly did dis tur b c om m er ci al a ct ivi ty ; and s he is al le ge d to have ca use d dam ag e w he n sh e str uc k pr ope rty

a lon gsi de a

navig ab le w at er

w ay . T hus, the dis tr ic t c ourt i m

pr ope rl y c onc lud ed

that the re w as no a dm ir al ty j ur isd ic tio n ov er t he Bo ard ’s to rt c la im . Having found there wa s no adm iralty j urisdictio n over the Board’ s tort claim , the district court then im properly ref used to is sue a w rit of attachm ent under Ru le B of the S uppl em en ta l R

ule s. Apla int if

f as se rt ing an in pe rs on am mar i t i me claim m ay seek an attachm ent of the relevant vessel under Rule B if he produces ana ff idavit a tte sti ng t o th e fa ct

that the de fe ndant c an not be “ fo und w ith in the di st ric t” forpu rp os es of ju ris di ct io n a nd ser vi ce o f pr oc es s. See Rule B(1)( b); Ne hri ng , 901 F . 2d at 10 51 n . 6. A ft er ar ev ie wof

the c om pla int and the a ff

idavit , the c ourt m

ust e nte r anor de r au tho ri zi ng the pr oc es s of a tta ch m en t and garnishm ent if the condition s of Rule B e xist. Rule B( 1)(b). A s explained abov e, the Bo ar d ha s pr ope rl y

state d am ar iti m e tort c la im f or the dam ag e ca

use d by the Be lle of O rl eans whe n sh e br oke f re e of he r m oor ing s and s tr

uc k th e Mari na . T he parties agree that Belle of O rleans, L. L. C., cannot be found in the Southern District of A labam a. T hus, the necessary conditio ns exist andthe district court29

shou ld h av e ac ce pte d a dm ir al ty j ur isd ic tio n and o rd er ed

the a tta ch m en t of

the Bel le of Orl ean s p ur su an t t o R ul e B. C . Th e Bo ar d’ s I

n R e m C o n t r a c tCl a i ms Having determ ined that the Belle of O rleans w as not a vessel, the district co urt di sm iss ed

the P la int if

f’ s in rem cl ai m s and h el d: [T ] he sub j ec t m atte r of

the le as e ag re em en ts s ue d up on i s si m ply not m ar iti m e ina sm

uc h a s it ha s no r ef

er en ce to m ar iti m e se rv ic es or transactions, does not relate to a “ ship/ vessel” in its us e as such, does not r el at e to c om

m er ce or navig at ionon n av iga

ble w at er s or

to tr an spor ta tio n by se a, and i s no t ne ce ssary to the ope ratio n, na vi ga ti on or m an ag em en t o f a “ sh ip /v es se l.” B d. of Co m m ’r

s , 439 F. Supp. 2d at 1198. The district court went on to state that ev enif the Be lle of

O rl eans w er e a ve sse l, “ a co ntr ac t pr ovi din g f or le as e paym en ts f

or a cr es or r ea l pr ope rty

/land, w hic h in cl ude s am ar ina and r ive r bot tom ad j ac en t t o th e m ar ina , is not am ar iti m e co ntr ac t” be ca use it doe s no t “ fa ci lit at e the putativ e vessel’ s use in navig ation or m aritim e com m erce .” Id

. a t 12 00. Whil e we di sa gr ee wi th th e d is tri ctco ur t’s an al y si s, we af fir m it s d is m is sa l.

“ A n in rem sui t a ga ins t a ve sse l i s . . . dis tin ct ive ly an a dm ir al ty

pr oc ee din g, and is hence within the exclusive prov ince of the fe deral courts. ” A m . D re dgi ng Co. v . M iller , 510 U . S. 443 , 446 -4 7 ( 1994 ). Apla int if f m ay br ing an a ct ion in rem to en fo rce a m ari ti m e li en . Se e B radf ord M ari ne , 64 F . 3d at 58 9 ( “ T he li enand30

the pr oc ee din g in rem are, therefor e, corre lative – where one exists, the other can be taken, and no t otherwise. ”) ( quot ation and citation om itted). Am aritim e lien m ay arise out of the brea ch of a m aritim e contract, but “ [n] ot every contract that som ehow re lates to a ship or its bu siness is considered m aritim e. ” Nehring v. Ste am shi p M /V P oin t V ail , 90 1 F .2d10 44 , 10 48 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). See P ie dm ont & G eo rges C

re ek Co al C o. v . Se aboa rd F

ish er ies C

o. , 2 5 4 U . S . 1 ( 1 9 2 0 ) ( “A c o n tr a c tc a n n o ta f

f o r dth e n e c e s s a ry b a s i s f

o r amar i t i me l i e n , u n l e s s i ti s mar i t i me in it s n atur e, so as t o b e co gn iz ab le in ad m ira lt y .”)). A m ar iti m e co ntr ac t m

ust “pe rt ai n di re ct ly

to an d be ne ce ssary

f or com m erce or navigation upon navigable water s.” In besa A m . , I nc . v . M /V A ngl ia , 134 F. 3d 1 035, 103 6 ( 11th C ir . 199 8) . T his de fi nit ionof am ar iti m e co ntr ac t i s ine xa ct and d if fi cu lt to a ppl y . A s su ch , c ourts l ook to p re ce de nt and u sa ge w ith re gard to m or e co m

m on ty pe s of c ontra ct s and c onsi de r le ss c om m on s itu at ion s on a cas e-b y -cas e b as is . Ne hri ng , 90 1 F .2dat 1 04 8. A c ontra ct

that pr ovi de s ave sse l w ith“ ne ce ssari es ” is c om m onl y co ns id ered a m ari ti m e co nt ract gi vi ng ris e to a m ari ti m e li en . See 46 U. S. C. §§ 3 1341 -3 42. T he te rm

“ ne ce ssari es inc lud es r ep ai rs , sup pli es , tow ag e, and the use of adr y doc k or m ar ine r ai lw ay . ” 46 U . S. C. § 31 301( 4) . C ourts h av e al so co m m onl y int er pr et ed “ ne ce ssari es ” to i nc lud e “ w harf ag e” or “ doc ka ge , ” the31

ch arg e to whi ch ve ss el s ar e li ab le forth e u se of a do ckor wh arf. In besa , 134 F . 3d at 1037-38 . “Ne cessaries” has further been libera lly construed to in clude:

“ w ha t i s r ea sona

bly ne ed ed in the shi p’ s bu sin es s, ” suc h a s “ good s or se rv ic es that are use fu l t o th e ve sse l, ke ep he r out of dange r, and en ab le he r to p er fo rm

he r part ic ular func tio n. N ec es sari es are the thing s that a prudent owner w ouldprovide to enable a ship to perform we ll the functions for which she has been engaged.” Bra df or d Ma ri ne , 64 F.3d at 589 (citations om itted) (holdin g that legal services pr ovi de d to c la im an t i n purs uin g it s in rem ac tio n w er e not “ ne ce ssari es ” be ca

use th ey were n ot pro vi de d t o t he ve ss el it se lf) . Se e als o I nbesa , 134 F . 3d at 10 36 (“ T he te st w e ap ply

in de ci din g w he the r the sub j ec t m atte r of

ac ontra ct

is ne ce ssary to the ope ratio n, navig at ion , or m an ag em en t of

ashi p is ate st o f re as ona ble ne ss, not

of absol ute ne ce ssi ty . ”) . S er vic es m ay

be “ im portant, ” y et

sti ll not be “ necessary .” Se e id. at 103 7 ( hol din g th at

a lth oughc ar go s er

vic es w er e “ no doub t i m portant” to the bus ine ss the y w er e not “ ne ce ssary ” be ca

use the y “ too k pla ce on l an d w ith out

r eg ar d to w he the r the [ shi p] w as in port” and c oul d have take n pl ac e be fo re it

arr ive d or

a ft er it le ft ). H usba

ndr y c ontra ct s f

or “ landsi de m ar ine sup port se rv ic es suc h a s c ar go s oli ci ta tio n, pr oc ur em en t of sup pli es , c re w s, stevedores or tugs, are not cogn izable in adm iralty since these services ar e considered to be of a nature prelim inary to the voy age.” Neh ri ng , 901 F.2d at32

1049 ( ci tin g In ge rso ll M

ill ing M ac h. Co . v . M

/V B ode na , 829 F. 2d 29 3 (2d Cir. 19 87 )). Inde ci din g to dis m iss P la int if f’ s a ct ion , the dis tr ic t c ourt r el ie d he av ily on th e fac t t ha t t he Agre em en t d idno t s pe ci fic al ly m en ti on whar fag e o r do ck ag e. T he abse nc e of

the te rm s “ w harf

ag e” or “ doc ka ge ” doe s no t pe r se r en de r the Agre em ent non-m aritim e. T he Agre em ent specifically provided th at Par cel 1 w as fo r “ [t ] he pr opos ed

m oor ing be rth f

or the r ive rb oa t c as ino and the r igh t of exclusive use of the adjac ent whar f ar ea. ” Parcel 1 w as necessary to load pa sse nge rs , e m

plo y ee s, and m at er ia ls o nto the Be lle of O rl eans. F urthe r, a t the tim e the c ontra ct

w as sig ne d in199 3, the Be lle of O rl eans w as e nga ge d inc as ino cr uis es and w as usi ng P ar ce l 1 as he r w harf be tw ee n c ru ise s. A t tha t t im e Parc el 1 pe rt ai ne d di re ct ly

to an d w as ne ce ssary

f or the Be lle of

O rl eans’ “ co m

m er ce and na vig at ionupo n navig ab le w at er s. ” T he Be lle of O rl eans c oul d no t c ru ise L ak e Po ntc hartra in w ith out

aw harf to co m e ba ck

to be tw ee n j our

ne y s to r es uppl y , and she could n ot condu ct her “particular f unction ,” casino com

m erce , w ithou t a w harf fr om w hic h he r pa sse nge rs c oul d e nte r an d le av e the shi p. T he f ac t tha t the Be lle of Or leans’ owners c hose to lease a parce l, including a wharf for the purpose of aIn 1993 when it sig ned the Agree ment, the Owne rs wer e we ll awar e that they would be 18 do c kin gthe B e lle of

Or le ans at th e Ma

ri na mul tip le tim e s a

da y . It is a log ic a l e c on omi c proposition that they

would rent the wharf

rathe r than pa

ying wharf

ag e ea ch time they

used it. 33 m ooring b erth for a

specific vessel, rather than pay for wharfage each tim e they used the do ck is sim

ply not ou tcom e determ inative. 18 T he Be lle of

O rl eans arg ue d th at

the A gr ee m en t f

or P ar ce l 1 w as not

a m aritim e contract bec ause it m erely provided for the lease of land. The Board pr ovi de d no se rv ic es to the Be lle of O rl eans, and the O w ne r w as r es pons ibl e fo r al l c as ino ope ratio ns, inc lud ing loa din g and unlo ad ing pa sse nge rs and g oods . T he A gr ee m en t w as unl ike the m ar iti m e co ntr ac t, r ef er en ce d by

the Bo ar d, in Ka le ido sc ope T

ours v . M /V Tr opi ca na , 755 F. Supp. 382 (S. D. 1990 ), which ar range d f or e m bark at ionse rv ic es f

or ac ru ise shi p, inc lud ing the c oll ec tio n of fare s and tickets and th e checking of passports. One could argue, there fore, that the le as e of

P ar ce l 1 w as not

am ar iti m e co ntr ac t be ca use it w as “ not ti ed to services to a specific vessel.” See R oy al I ns. Co . O f A m . v . P ie r 39 L td. P '

shi p , 738 F. 2d 1 035 (9 th C ir . 198 4) ( dis tin gui shi ng E x parte East on , 95 U . S. 68 ( 1877 ) (h old ing that an a gr ee m en t t o pay f or use of abe rth ov er

e le ve n day s w as a m ar iti m e co ntr ac t) , and s ta tin g, “ If the re is no c onne ct ionto a spe ci fi c ve sse l, how ev er , c ontra ct s r el at ing to w harv es ge ne ra lly are not w ith in a dm ir al ty j ur isd ic tio n. Ac ontra ct

to le as e a w harf

, f or e xa m ple , is not

w ith in the34

j ur isd ic tio n if

the le as e is n ot t ie d to se rv ic es to a spe ci fi c ve sse l. ”) . W e re j ec t this argum ent. T here is no case lawin this circuit to su pport it, and we find that there is n oth ing m or e es se nti al to “ co m m er ce and n av igatio n up on n av iga ble w at er s” th an th ata ve ss el ha ve a po rt f ro m whi ch to de pa rt a nd forwhi ch to return. Furthe r, thi s le as e se rv es aspe ci fi c ve sse l and e xpr es sly pr ovi de s it s purp ose is fo r the propos ed m ooring b erth for that vessel. T hus, under the factual cir cum stances of this case, the Agre em ent for Parcel 1 w as analogous to “ whar fage” and was m ari ti m e in na tu re. How ever, Par cel 1 m ade up onlya sm all perce ntage of the total land leased u n d e r th e A g r e e me n t , l e s s th a n f i v e p e r c e n t . Ac o n t r a c tmu s tb e “w h o l l y ma r i t i me i n n a tu r e ” t o f

a l l w i t h i n f

e d e r a l a d mi r a l t y j u r i s d i c t i o n o r “i t s n o n - mar i t i me elem ents m

ust be either insign ificant or separa ble without prejudice to either party .” In besa, 134 F . 3d at 10 36. P ar ce ls 2 , 3, 4, and 5 are not “ ne ce ssari es , ” an d w e a g r e e w i t h th e d i s t r i c tc o u rtth a tth e c o n t r a c tt o p r o c u r e th e m h a s n o “mar i t i me fl av or . ” T he se e le m en ts o f the c ontra ct w oul d be e qua lly

appl ic ab le to a ca sin o func tio nin g onland i n aw ay that the le as e of

the r ive r bot tom

in Parc el 1 w oul d not . B el le of

O rl eans arg ue s th at

e ve n if the se are not

m ar iti m e, the c ontra ct

a s a whole m ay

still be so. Such an ar gum ent is unp ersuasive. These e lem ents, w hich m ak e up m or e than ni ne ty -f ive pe rc en t of

the tot al c ontra ct , are not “ ins ign if ic an t”The orig inal Ag ree ment states in Section I I Ithat “the minimum rent per a nnum shall be 19 $700,000 (base d on $1.50 per sq. f t. for 10.71 ac res more or less) . . . ( R-1, Ex . 1, at I I I ), howeve r, this in no way

indicates the va lue of the a cre ag e in Parc el 1, whethe r these c alculations are applicable afte r the Agree ment’s multiple amendments, or whe ther this number c hang ed when a portion of the B elle of O rlea ns’ g ambling r evenue was a dded as a dditional rent.

35 or e as ily se ve ra ble . T he Bo ar d w oul d li ke ly not have le as ed

the w harf

spa ce to the O w ne r but

f or the a gr ee m en t r eg ar din g th e re m ai nde r of the pr ope rty . F urthe r, the co ntr ac t pr ic e, w hic h is ba se d onaquart er ly r en ta l f ee and a pe rc en ta ge of

the ga m bli ng r ev enue , c an not

be dis til le d in to a

pe r ac re f

igure so tha t the portio n of the c ontra ct

de al ing w ithP ar ce l 1 m ay be se ve re d. E ve n if

the tot al c ost

c oul d be 19 converted into a per acr e num ber, it is unclear w hether eac h acre agree d upo n has ane qua l va lue to the part ie s. T hus, a lth oughthe A gr ee m en t r eg ar ds a “ ve sse l” an d c ont ai ns m ar iti m e el em en ts, it is not am ar iti m e co ntr ac t gi vin g r ise to a m ar iti m e lie n. III . C on cl us ion Under the analy ses and hold ings o f P le ason an d Ste wa rt , the Be lle of O rl eans i s a“ ve sse l, ” subj ec t t o a dm ir al ty j ur isd ic tio n. T he Bo ar d pr ope rl y ple d a m ar iti m e tort c la im

r es ult ing f

ro m the a lli sio n be tw ee n th e Be lle of O rl eans and the Mari nadur ing H ur

ri cane K atri naund er

our pr ec ed en t i n B unge Co rp . and pr op erl y req ue st edth e at ta ch m en t o f th e Bel le of Orl ean s p ur su an t t o R ul e B. T he re fo re , the dis tr ic t c ourt i m pr ope rl y dis m iss ed

the Bo ar d’ s in p er

sona m tort36

cl ai m f or la ck of a dm ir al ty

j ur isd ic tio n and s houl d a tta chthe Be lle of O rl eans pur suant t o R

ule B of the S uppl em en ta l R

ule s. H ow ev er , the Bo ar d ha s no t established a m aritim e contract c laim givin g rise to a m aritim e lien enforce able in rem . T he A gr ee m en t, a lth oughpart ia lly m ar iti m e in n at

ur e, is not

pr ed om inantl y m aritim e and contains sub stantial non -m aritim e elem ents that cannot b e severe d w ith out inj ur y to the part ie s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly dis m iss ed

the Bo ar d’ s in re m co nt ract cla im s. AFFIRMED I N PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.