UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MACBRIDE NIG. LIMITED (ADEBISI ADENARIWO) , Plaintiff ,

v. FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION , Defendant. Civil Action No. 13
- 1201 (ESH)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff MacBride NIG Limited ( Adebisi Adenariwo ) filed a pro se lawsuit against the
Federal Maritime Commission (“Commission”) requesting judicial review o f decision s made by

a Commission Settlement Officer. ( Compl. , Aug. 2, 2013 [ECF No. 1] , at 2 .) Defendant now
moves for dismissal

. (Motion to Dismiss (“Mot.”) , Oct. 1, 2013 [ECF No. 5]

. ) For the reasons stated below, defendant ’s motion will be granted

. BACKGROUND Under the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. § § 40101 et seq. , the Federal Maritime Commission, an independent agency tasked with regulating international maritime commerce, is permitted to hear and adjudicate the claims of independent parties alleging violat ions of the

statute

. See 46 U.S.C. § 41301. Where the claimant requests less than $50,000 , the parties may agree to have the claim decided by a Commission Settlement Officer through an informal adjudication process

. 46 C.F.R . § 502.301(b). The decision reached by the Settlement Officer is
considered a final order after thirty days unless the Commission exercises its “discretionary2 right ” to review

. 46 C.F.R. § 502.304(g). Under the Hobbs Act, e xclusive jurisdiction for the appeal of final orders by the Commission is vested in a federal court of a ppeal s wh ere venue is
proper . 28 U.S.C. § 2342 ; see also D. L. Piazza Co. v. W. Coast Line , 119 F. Supp. 937, 939 (N.D. Ill. 1953) (holding that federal district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction f or case brought under predecessor statute). Pursuant to this statutory procedure , Mr. Adenariwo filed two c laims with the
Commission on behalf of his company, MacBride Nigerian Ltd., aga inst BDP International Inc.,
Zim Integrated Shipping, and Zim’s agent for shipping related disputes

. ( See Pltf.’s Exhibit,
4/18 /201 2 Settlement Officer Decision.) In order to avoid a lengthy and resource

- intensive
process , plaintiff chose to limit each claim to $50,000 and pursue infor mal adjudication before a Settlement Officer. (Compl. at 2.) On April 18, 2012, the Settlement Officer issued a decision dismissing one claim as time

- barred (Docket Number 1920(I)) and ordering Mr. Adenariwo to
demonstrate a valid assignment from his co
- s ignee corporation , MacBride Nigerian Ltd. , on the other claim (Docket Number 1921(I))

. ( See Pltf.’s Exhibit, 4/18/2012 Settlement Officer Decision.) After Mr. Adenariwo supplemented the record in Docket Number 1921(I) , the Settlement Officer granted him reparations of $18,308.94 plus interest in a decision dated March 7, 2013

. ( See Pltf.’s Exhibit, 3 /7/2013 Settlement Officer Decision.) Within thirty days, however, t he Commission exercised its right to review the Settlement Officer’s decision on Dock et Number 1921(I)

. ( See Def.’s Ex. A, “Notice of Determination to Review”.) This review is still pending

. ANALYSIS Defendant recognizes that a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings are held to a less stringent
standard

. Brown v. D.C. , 514 F.3d 1279, 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2008) . Nevertheless, d efendant argues3 that this case must be dismissed on three independent grounds : (1) th e Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act; (2) the Commission’s decision on Docket 1921(I) is not yet final; and (3) plaint iff fails to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons discussed below, t he Court ag rees that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case and
that the case is not yet ripe for review in federal court

. Therefore, w ithout reac hing the merits , the case must be dismissed without prejudice

. First, under the explicit terms of the Hobbs Act “ [t]he court of appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to enjoin, set aside, suspend (in whole or in part), or to determine the validity of all rules, regulations, or final orders of the Federal Maritime Commission issued pursuant to . . . 46
U.S.C. § 41304.” 28 U.S.C. § 2342

. Plaintiff does not challenge the applicability of this statute
to his claims. To the con trary, he concedes this deficiency and requests that this Court “transfer the case to the Court of Appeal [sic] when appropriate in time.” (“Motion to deny defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint,” [ ECF No. 10 ], at 5. ) However, this Court is only permitted to transfer a case to an other district court. See 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). Absent subject matter jurisdiction, the Court has no choice but to dismiss the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(1)

. Second, the Commission’s deci sion is not yet ripe for review by a federal court because it
is not yet a final order

. See Bennet v. Spear , 520 U.S. 154, 177

- 78 (1997). The confusion on this point arises from the fact that the plaintiff brought two independent claims for informal adjudication by the Settlement Officer that were “procedurally consolidat ed” because “they involved substantially the same issues and parties.” ( See Pltf.’s Exhibit, 3/7/2013 Settlement
Officer Decision on Reparations .) The first claim, Docket Number 1920(I) , was dismissed and became final on March 22, 2013 , when the Commission did not exercise its right to review the decision within thirty days under 46 C.F.R. § 502.304(g). ( See Pltf.’s Exhibit, 3/7/20134 Settlement Officer Decision o n Petition for Reconsideration .) The time to appeal that decision expired prior to plaintiff’s filing the present complaint on August 2, 2013. 1 T he second claim,
Docket Number 1 921(I) for which Mr. Adenariwo was awarded reparations of $18,308.94 , is not yet a final order because the Commission is still reviewing the case. T he Hobbs Act only permits the review of “final order s” and therefore no federal court is able to review the case at
this time

. See Blue Ridge Envtl. Def. Le ague v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’ n , 668 F.3d 747, 753 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (“ Finalit y under the Hobbs Act is to be narrowly construed[;] ... [a]n order is
final if it imposes an obligation, denies a right, or fi xes some legal relationship, usually at the consummation of an administrative p rocess.” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)).
CONCLUSION For the foregoing jurisdictional reasons, defendant’s M otion is granted

. A separate Order accompanies this M emorandum O pinion.

/s/ ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE United States District Judge
Date: November 26, 2013

1 Plaintiff had sixty days from March 22, 2013 to appeal Docket Number 1920(I) to the Court of Appeals. Plaintiff did not bring suc h an appeal by May 22, 2013 as wa s required by 28 U.S.C. § 2344. Instead , plaintiff filed the present complaint on August 2, 2013.