### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J une 18 , 2 004 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ N o. 02- 1699 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ D. C. Dock etNo. 9 8- 01 63 7- CV-J LK INTERNATIONAL A IRCR AFT RECOVERY, L.L.C., aNe v a d aLi mi t e dLi ab i l i t y C o mp a n y, Plaintiff-C ount erD ef en da nt- Appe llant,
ve rs us THE UNIDENTIFIED, W RECKED AND ABANDON ED AIRCRAFT, her ar m am ent, a

pparel, and cargo located within one m arine lea gue of a point lo cated at 25-000 43'34" N L atitude and 80 -2'8" W Longitude,

De fendant-Appellee, UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Intervenor, CounterClaim ant-De fendant-Appellee.2 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 18, 200 4) Be fo re CA RN E S, H U L L a nd KRA V IT CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Pl ai nti ff -a ppe llant, I nte rn ational A ir cr af t R ec ove ry , L
. L
. C. , ( “ IA R” ) ap pe al s th e d is tri ctco ur t’s en try of s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e Uni te d S ta te s. In199 0, S ci en tif

ic S earc h A sso ci at es , agr oup of sa lvo rs se ar ch ing fo r Sp an ish galleons, located the wr eck of a Navy “ De vastator” T BD- 1 torpedo b om ber (“ TB D” ) that crashed off the coast of Florida on July 1, 1943. Sc ientific Search A ssociates vid eo ta pe d the w re ck an d off

er ed to se ll the vid eo a nd the loc at ionof the w re ck

to the Na tional Mus eum

of N aval Aviation (“

NMNA ” )
. The N MNAdeclined. O n February 8, 1991, C ap t ai n Rasm

ussen, director of the N MNA , wrote to Scientific S earc h A sso ci at es . I n th at

le tte r, Ra sm

uss ena dvi se d S ci en tif

ic S earc h A sso ci at es tha t: 2. T he TB D D evastator, its re sidue and/o r com ponent parts are owned by the De partm ent of the Navy . The D epartm en t of the N avy has assigned all salv age rights, custody and control of t he TB D D evastator, it s re si du e an d c om

po ne nt pa rts to th e [NMNA]. .
. .At the time the letter w as for war ded to Champlin, Champlin di d not know the location 1 of the TB D. Champlin realized from the be g inning that it was possible that no a g ree ment with the 2 Na vy wo uld e ve r b e re a c he d; i n h is d e po sit ion , h e state d th a t th e wh ole op e ra tio n w a s a “g amble,” but that he “thoug ht rea sonable men c ould find a solution.” Captain Rasmussen did not have a uthority to enter into a f

inal ag ree ment on behalf

of 3 the Navy , but, had there been a tentative agree ment, he would have forwa rded the proposed a g re e me nt t o th e a

pp ro pr iate of

fi c ia l. 3 7. T he D ep ar

tm en t of the N av y , a nd i ts M use um [ N MN A ] , ha ve not giv ena ny one the auth or ity , ei the r ex pr es sly or im pli ed ly , to ex tr ac t f

ro m the Atlantic Oc ean, part or all of the TB D De vastator. Any at t emp t at
so s al va gin g th e T BD , w ith out the e xpr es s w ri tte n pe rm iss ionof the D ep ar tm en t of the N av y , thr oughit s M use um , w ill r es ult in a
re co m m en da tio n f

ro m th is of

fi ce to ins tit

ute w ha te ve r ac tio n is ap pr opr ia te to pr ev en t an un au tho ri ze d takin g. A ft er se ndi ng this le tte r, the N av y le ar ne d th at D ougl as Ch am

pli n, pr es ide nt of t h e p r e d e c e s s o r t o I A R , w a s i n t e r e s t e d i n r e c o v e r i n g t h e T B D
. A s a re sul t, Ra sm uss enf or w ar de d ac opy

of the ab ove le tte r to Ch am

pli n on Fe br

ua ry 20, 199 1. 1 N ev er the le ss, in Apr il 199 1, Ch am pli n pu rc ha se d th e co or din at es of the T BD f

ro m Sc ie nti fi c Se ar ch A sso ci at es . H e al so e nte re d in to an a gr ee m en t w ithWre ck F ind er s, 2 a salvage com

pany , to salvage the TB D. Over the next fewy ears, Cham plin eng aged in a se ri es of ne got ia tio ns wi th the N av y , w hic h wa s r ep re se nte d by Ra sm uss en , in

3T h e d i s c u s s i o n s a l s o r e s u l t e d i ns e v e r a l l e tt e r s s i m i l ar

t o th e o n e qu o t e d

a b o v e . In 4 Janu ary 19 92 , Ra smu sse n w ro te : “ [T]hi s a ir c ra ft sti ll c on sti tut e s U .S. Na

vy pr op e rt y and if dis tur be d o r r e c ov e re d th e De pa rtme nt o f Jus tic e wi ll i nte rv e ne and pa rt ie s in de e d w ill have to make a mends to the fede ral g overnme nt.” In addition, in J une 1993, B erna rd Murphy , the Navy ’s Fe dera l Preservation Office r, wrote to Champlin’s counsel: “[O] n the advice of the Na vy Admiralty

Counsel, y our client doe s not have pe rmission to salve the wre ck. An individual who undertakes to intrude upon or r emove this airc raf t will be subject to criminal prosec ution and civil action by

the U.S. g overnme nt.” The D epar tment of J ustice sent similar letters in F ebrua ry and Mar ch of 1995. F inally , in November 1998, Dr. Willi am S. Dudley , the Dire ctor of N aval History , wrote to Champlin and expressly prohibited him and his company from attemptingany salvag e of the TBD
. Cha mpl in c la ims that th e 19 94 e xpe dit ion wa s d on e on

the a dv ic e of

NMNADe puty 5 Direc tor Robert Mac on. 4 an attem pt to reach an agre em ent to salvage the TBD
. These discussions we re fr uit le ss and d id n ot r es ult

in a fi na l a gr ee m en t. 4 Si nc e 1 99 1, Ch am

pl in , t hr ou gh IAR an d it s pr ed eces so rs , has co nd uc te d t wo
sa lva ge ope ratio ns o f the T BD
. In D ec em be r 1994 , I A R r ec ove re d aportio n of the plane’ s canopy

and film ed the wr eck site. T hen, in 1998, IA R re turned to the wrec k 5 sit e, m ad e an oth er

vid eo ta pe a nd r ec ove re d ar ad io m as t. T he T BD plane ha s be enthe sub j ec t of m uc h li tig at ionsin ce the dis co ve ry of its r es tin g pl ac e in 1990. I n 19 94, I A R’ s pr ed ec es sor f ile d su it, se ek ing pos se ssi on of the wr eck, exclusive salvage rights, and a salvage aw ard. That suit wa s dism issed
vo lu nt ari ly. In 1998, the current litigation b egan when I AR filed s u i t i n fe deral court seeking an injunction from interfer ence with its salvage rights, and a salvage aw ardBe cause all salvag e oper ations occur red a fter r ece ipt of that letter, the district cour t 6 deter mined that I AR was not entitled to any voluntary

salvag e aw ard. 5 or ti tle to the T BD und er

the law of

f ind s. T he di st ric t co urt f ound tha t I A R c oul d salvage the aircr aft, and retained j urisdictio n to determ ine any applicable salvage fee. On appeal, this court reverse d, ho lding that “ the United States, as ow ner of the plane,
can pr ohi bit

I A R’ s sa lva ge e ff

orts. ” I nte rn at ion al Air cr af t R ec ove ry , L
. L
. C. v. Unidentified, W

recke d , and Abandoned Aircr aft, 218 F.3d 1255 , 1256 (11th Cir. 2000 ). W e re m anded the case for the district court to “ consider when the U nited St at es effectively rejected the sa lva ge e ff or ts o f IA R and i ts p re de ce sso rs -i n- int er es t,
an d to c al cu la te asa lva ge a w ar d, if appr opr ia te , f

or the ir pa st e ff orts. ” I d. a t 12 64 (em ph as is ad de d)
. O n r em an d, the dis tr ic t c ourt determ in ed tha t R as m uss en ’ s 19 91 l et te r to Cham plin was an eff

ective rej ection and that IAR wa s not entit led to a salvage aw ard for any s al vage operations perform ed after the rec eipt of Rasm

ussen’s 1991 letter. 6 T he dis tr ic t c ourt, the re fo re , gr an te d su m m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of the U nit ed

S ta te s. IA R now appeals. T he only issue pro p er l y before us is whether the 1991 letter
o p e r a t e da s a n “e f

f e c t i v e r e j e c t i o n . ” We h o l dt h a ti td i da n da f f i rm. W e re vie w adis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t de nov o. P en nin gto n
v. Ci ty of H unt svi lle , 261 F. 3d 1262, 1265 (1 1th Ci r. 200 1)
. S um m ar y j udgm en t i s6

ap pr opr ia te w he re the “ ple ad ing s, de posi tio ns, a nsw er s to int er ro ga tor ie s, a nd adm iss ion s on fi le , tog ethe r w iththe a ff idavit s, if a ny , sho w tha t the re is no g enuin e iss ue a s to an y m at eri al f ac t and tha t the m ovi ng p ar ty is en tit le d to j udgm en t a s a
m at te r of law . ” Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 56( c)
. W e vie w the f ac ts and i nf

er en ce s inthe li ght
m ost f av or ab le to the non -m ovi ng p ar ty
. P en nin gto n, 261 F
. 3d a t 12 65. Ra sm uss en ’ s 1991 lette r to Cham pli n wa s an “ ef

fe ct ive re j ec tio n” of

sa lva ge
se rv ic es . T ha t l et te r sta te d: “ A ny a tte m pt a t so sa lva gin g th e T BD , w ith ou t the
ex pr es s w ri tte n pe rm iss ion of the D ep ar tm en t of the N av y , thr ough its m use um , w ill
re sul t i n ar ec om

m en da tio n f

ro m thi s of fi ce to inst itu te w ha te ve r ac tio n is appr opr ia te to p re ve nt an un au tho ri ze d takin g. ” I n effect, thi s le tte r re j ec ts s al va ge e ff

orts undertaken absent a written agreem ent with the N avy . IA R stipulated on the rec ord that “ there is not now n or h as t here ever b een an agreem ent with the N avy that wa s
ex ec ute d or

a n enf or ce ab le a gr ee m en t w he re one sid e or the oth er c oul d no t have b ac k ed o u t .” Th u s , I AR

p er fo rmed a l l s al v ag e s er v i ce s af t erre ce i p to f t h e N av y’ s
re j ec tio n and w ith out

aw rit te n ag re em en t w iththe N av y . I A R, the re fo re , is not
en tit le d to a ny

sa lva ge a w ar d. IA R, a dm its that the re w as ne ve r an en fo rc ea ble ag re em en t w iththe N av y , but
m ak es sev eral arg um en ts to th e effe ct th at th e Nav y “ pe rm it te d” or “ en co ur ag ed ” IAR int o pr ovi din g vo lun tary

sa lva ge se rv ic es , or at le as t “ ac qui es ce d” in IA R’ s c ondu ct
.The only issue rema

nded to the district cour

t was whe ther a

nd when the N avy 7 eff ectively reje cted sa lvag e ser

vices, a nd, conseque ntly , that is the only issue that we c an dec ide. See L itman v. Massachuse tts Mut. L ife Ins. Co., 825 F.2d 1506, 1510-11 (11th Cir. 1987) ( en banc)
. W e a l s o n o t e t h atI ARar gu es th atR as mu s s en d i d n o th av e au th o ri ty

t o re j ec ts al v age service s on behalf of

the Navy . This argument was not ra ised in the district court and, the ref ore, we will not addre ss it on appeal. See Walton v. J ohnson & Johnson S ervic es, Inc., 347 F .3d 12 72 , 1 29 2 ( 11 th C ir . 2 00 3) (“ As a g e ne ra l r ule , w e do no t c on sid e r a

rgume nts ra ise d f

or the fi rs t time on appea l.”). 7 T he c ru x of

I A R’ s arg um en t r el ie s onc er ta in s ta te m en ts m ad e by Ro be rt Ma co n, the D ep uty D ir ec tor of the N MN A
. Al th ou gh the se state m en ts m igh t p r o v i d e s o me supp ort for IA R’ s argum ent, they are insufficient to give r ise to a salvage aw ard because, at the tim e the statem ents wer e m ade, IA R’ s p redece ssor had received Ra sm uss en’ s 19 91 l et te r. T hus, I A R w as on n oti ce tha t the N av y r ej ec te d sa lva ge services. IA R canno t be com pensated for operations it cond ucted after rec eiving su ch notice. IA R al so arg ue s th at

the N av y

“ tr ic ke d” it

int o pr ovi din g sa lva ge se rv ic es , includi ng m aking publ ic t he location of t he TB D. T o the extent that IAR a lleges that the Navy ’ s actions am ount ed to fraud, and that the Navy negotiated with IAR in bad fa ith , w e m ak e no de ci sio n w ith re ga rd to the se cl ai m s, be ca use the y a re not pr ope rl y be fo re thi s c ourt. 7 Fo r the f or eg oin g r ea sons , w e hol d th at Ra sm uss en ’ s 19 91 l et te r to C ha m pli n
w as a n “ ef

fe ct ive r ej ec tio n” of

salv ag e se rv ic es a nd tha t I A R i s no t e nti tle d to a8

vol unt ar y sa lva ge aw ar d for an y se rv ic es pr ovi de d af te r tha t dat e. B ec au se a ll sa lva ge services w ere provided after rece ipt of the le tter, IA R is not entitled to any volun tary
sa lva ge a w ar d. A cc or din gly , w e A FF IRM the dis tr ic t c ourt. AFFIR MED