F ILED U.S. CO URT OF AP P EALS ELEVENTH CI RCUIT Janua ry 6 , 20 09 THO MAS K . K AHN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 14 74 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 0 7- 00 08 6- CV-J -2 0- MCR

KAW ASAKI KISEN KAISHA, LTD ., Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us

ALL CITY USED A UTO PARTS, INC., a fo rei gn co rp or at io n, i n p ers on am , Defen da nt -Cro ss Cla im an tCro ss Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee,

SKYLINE TRADING, INC., a fo rei gn co rp or at io n, i n p ers on am ,

Defen da nt -Cro ss Defen da nt

Cro ss Cla im an t-Ap pe ll ee,
LIPMAN MODEL 22 7 1 b (ONE), et c., et a l.,

Defen da nt s.__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 6, 2 00 9)
Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR an d C OX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.
PER CURI AM:

Kawas ak i Kis en Kais ha , Lt d. (“ Kawas ak i” ) ap p e a l s th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r
de nyin g Kawas ak i’s m ot io n fo r at to rn ey s’ fees

. Kawas ak i’s or ig in al co m pl ai nt was
fil e d i n Feb ru ary 20 07 an d al le ge d fed eral su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ba se d on 28

U.S.C. § 13 32 (d iv ers it y juri sd ic ti on ), § 13 33 (ad m ira lt y juri sd ic ti o n ) , an d

Su pp le m en ta l Ru le B fo r Cert ai n Adm ira lt y a n d M ari ti m e Cl ai m s. (R.1 -1 ¶2 .) In

Co un t I, th e or ig in al co m

pl ai nt al le ge d th at Defen da nt s All Ci ty Use d Aut o Part s, In c. (“ All Ci ty”) an d Sk y li ne Trad in g, In c. (“ Sk y li ne ”) as se rte d co m pe ti ng cl ai m s to

eq ui pm en t th at was in Kawas ak i’s po ss es si on

. Co un t I pl ed a cl ai m fo r in te rp le ad er,

pu rs ua nt to Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 22 , ag ai ns t th es e Defen da nt s an d so ug ht

pa y m en t fro m th es e sa m e Defen da nt s fo r th e co st s of ret ur n frei gh t, de m ur rag e, care ,
st or ag e, an d pr es erv at io n of t h e eq ui pm en t as well as co st s an d at to rn ey s’ fees

in cu rred in th e la wsu it

. (R.1 -1 at 2

- 6

. ) Co un t II of th e or ig in al co m pl ai nt so ug ht

pa y m en t in qu an tu m m eru it f ro m th es e sa m e Defen da nt s fo r th e co st s of ret ur n

2frei gh t, de m ur rag e, care , st or ag e, an d pr es erv at io n of th e eq ui pm en t. (R.1 -1 at 6- 7.)

Co un t III req ue st ed th at , p u r s u a n t t o Ru le B of th e Su pp le m en ta l Ru le s fo r Cert ai n
Adm ira lt y an d Mar it im e Cl ai m s, th e co ur t is su e Pro ces s of Mar it im e Att ach m en t an d

Garn is hm en t, “ at ta ch in g al l of th e Defen da nt s’ ta ng i b l e a n d in ta ng ib le pr op ert y ,
go od s, ch at te ls an d cred it s wit hi n th e Dis tri ct an d pa rti cu la rly th e Equ ip m en t,” up to
th e am ou nt of t he co st s o f ret ur n fr ei gh t. (R.1 -1 at 8 .)

D ur ing the fo llo w ing m ont hs, K aw as ak i’ s cl ai m s fo r ret ur n frei gh t were se ttl ed

. In Aug us t 20 07 , Kawas ak i so ug ht an d rece iv ed le av e of th e co ur t to fil e an am en de d

co m pl ai nt . The am en de d c om pl ai nt pl ed two cl ai m s. As in th e or ig in al co m pl ai nt , Co un t I of th e am en de d co m pl ai nt st at ed a cl ai m fo r in te rp le ad er, pu rs ua nt to Fed eral

R u le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 22

. Co un t I of th e am en de d co m pl ai nt so ug ht co st s of th e

care , st or ag e, or pr es erv at io n of th e eq ui pm en t an d Kawas ak i’s cos ts an d att or ne y s’
fees in cu r r e d i n b rin gi ng th e la wsu it

. The am en de d co m pl ai nt al le ge d th at juri sd ic ti on ov er Co un t I was ba se d up on 28 U.S.C. §§ 13 32 an d 13 33

. (R.1 -3 7 at 2- 5.) Co un t II of th e am en de d co m pl ai nt pl ed in te rp le ad er, pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. §

13 35

. Tha t st at ut e pr ov i d e s a n in de pe nd en t ba si s fo r fed eral su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on

. Co un t II of th e am en de d co m pl ai nt al so so ug ht co st s of th e care , st or ag e,

or pr es erv at io n o f th e eq ui pm en t an d Kawasa ki ’s co st s and at to rn ey s’ fees in cu rred

3in br in gi ng th e la wsu it

. The am en de d co m pl ai nt di d no t se ek an y ad m ira lt y or

m ari ti m e rem ed y
. Bec au se it was la te r de te rm in ed th at th e am ou nt in co nt ro ve rs y was in su ffi ci en t

to su pp or t juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. §1 33 2 or § 1 3 3 3 , Kawas ak i di d no t pu rs ue
Co un t I of th e am en de d co m pl ai nt

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Kawas ak i’s m ot io n fo r
in te rp le ad er on Co un t II of it s am en de d co m pl ai nt , th e st at ut or y in te rp le ad er cl ai m

. (R.3 -8 9.)

Kawas ak i th en m ov ed fo r at to rn ey s’ f e e s an d co st s. In it s or de r de nyin g th e

m ot io n, th e di st ric t co ur t ack no wled ge d th at “ Gen eral ly, at to rn ey ’s fees are jus ti fie d

in in te rp le ad er act io ns as th e act io n it se lf y ie ld s a co st -eff ic ie nt res ol ut io n of a di sp ut e
in a si ng le fo ru m , rat he r th an ha vi ng th e pa rti es li ti ga te th e sa m e is su es pi ecemeal.” (R.3 -1 19 at 2.) Bu t, th e di st ric t co ur t st at ed , “ Not wit hs ta nd in g th is ge ne ral ru le , th e
Co ur t can no t ov erl oo k th e fact th at th is act io n is an ad m ira lt y c a s e, whi ch req ui res
th is Co ur t, ab se nt an act of Co ng r e s s , t o ap pl y es ta bl is he d m ari ti m e la w. In th is
Ci rcu it , it is well es ta bl is he d th at at to rn e y’s f e es are ge ne ral ly no t award ed in
ad m ira lt y cas es .” (R.3 -1 19 at 2 .) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d.)

W e rev ie w di stri ct co ur

t de ci sio ns reg ard in g award s of at to rn ey s’ fees fo r ab us e
of di sc ret io n. Atl an ta Jo ur na l an d Co ns ti tu ti on v. Ci ty of Atl an ta Dep ’t of

Avia ti on , 44 2 F.3 d 12 83 , 12 87 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ). “‘A d i s t r ic t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n if it

4ap pl ie s an in co rrec t le ga l st an da rd , fo ll ows im pr op er pr oc ed ur e s i n m ak in g th e
de te rm in at io n, or m ak es fin di ng s of fact th at are cl earl y erro ne ou s.’” Kl ay v. Uni te d

Hea lt hg ro up , In c. , 37 6 F.3 d 10 92 , 10 96 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 04 ) ( qu ot in g Mar ti n v.
Aut omo bi li La mbo rg hi ni Excl us iv e, In c. , 30 7 F.3 d 13 32 , 13 36 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 02 )). “ A
di st ric t co ur t m ay al so ab us e it s di sc ret io n by ap pl y in g th e la w in an un reas on ab le or
in co rrec t m an ne r.” Id

. ( ci ti ng W oo da rd v. Fan bo

y, L.L.C. , 29 8 F.3 d 12 61 , 12 68 n.1 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) ).
Afte r rev ie w of th e reco rd , we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in fin di ng
th at th is is an a d mi r a l t y cas e an d th us ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g Kawas ak i’s

m ot io n fo r at to rn ey ’s fees

. The on ly cl a i m r e s o l v e d in th is cas e was fo r st at ut or y
in te rp le ad er pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 13 35

. Neit he r th e di st ric t co ur t’s juri sd ic ti on no r
th e m eri ts of th at cl ai m de pe nd in a n y way on ad m ira lt y la w. Thu s, Kawas ak i’s

m ot io n fo r at to rn ey ’s fees sh ou ld ha ve be en co ns id ered un de r th e ru le th at at to rn ey ’s
fees ge ne ral ly are jus ti fie d in in te rp le ad er act io ns

. Se e In re Man da la y Sh or es Co -Op

Hou si ng Ass ’n , 21 F.3d 38 0, 3 83 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ).
The or de r de nyin g an a w a r d o f at to rn ey s’ fees is va cat ed an d th e cas e is

rem an de d to th e d i s tri ct co ur t. The di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld reco ns id er Kawas ak i’s

m ot io n an d m ak e a de te rm in at io n as to th e am ou nt of at t o r n e ys ’ fees , if an y , th at

Kawas ak i i s d ue un de r th e g en eral rul e fo r st at ut or y in te rp le ad er ac ti on s.
VACATED AN D REMANDED.

5