FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 31, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 39 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 6- cv -0 16 85 -SDM- MAP ODYSSEY MARINE EXPLORATION, INC., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pla in ti ff - Ap pe ll ee, KEITH BRAY, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Int erv en orPla in ti ff - Ap pe ll an t,
vers us THE UNIDENTIFIED, SHIPWRECKED V ESSEL OR VESSELS, inrem , th ei r ap pa rel , tac kl e, ap pu rte na nc es an d c arg o l oc at edwithi n cen te r po in t co or di na te s: 49 25 ' N, 6 0 0'W'; Ra di us : 5 naut ic al m il es , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Defen da nt- App el le e, KINGDOM OF SPAIN, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Cl ai m an t.__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 31 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andMARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg es . MARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg e: App el la ntKeit h B ray (“ Bray”) ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f hi s act io n fo r co nt ractreci si on ba se d o n l ackof s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on . Becau se we co nc lu de th atBray’ s cl ai m is co gn iz ab le infed eral adm ira lt y juri sd ic ti on , 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 3, we re ve rs e an d re m an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs . Bray, a cit iz enof Gre atBri ta in an d re se arch er o f su nk enseave ss el s, s eek s reci si on of aco nt ractth athe co nt en ds ap pe ll ee Ody ss ey Mari ne Exp lo rat io n, In c. (“ Odysse y ”), a Nev ad a co rp or at io n e ng ag edinde ep seaex pl or at io n a ndreco ve ry , frau du le nt ly induc edhi m in to en te rin g. Bray all eg es th atten y ears ag o h e en te red in to anora l ag reem en t wi th Odysse y , inwhi ch he ag reedto pro vi de hi s re se arch
an d d at a co nc ern in g t he lo cat io n o f th e Mer ch an t Ro ya l , a lo ng -s un k a nd po te nt ia ll y

hi gh ly val uabl e Sp an is h c arg o v es se l, i n e xc ha ng e fo r certa in pro ceed s fro m th e rec ov ery of

th atve ss el an d o th er re se arch co st s. By Bray’ s ac co un t, Odysse y pro m is edto ke ep hi m

in fo rm edof i ts sea rch effo rts , bu t u lt im at el y

2pr ov id edno in fo rm at io n abo utit s p ro gr es s. Bra y co nt in ue s t ha t, fi ve y ears aft er ag reei ng to th e o ral co ntract , Ody ss ey in fo rm edhi m

th atitha d n o p la ns to sea rch fo r th e Merch an t Ro

ya l
. The pa rti es th enex ecu te d awrit te n c on tra ctinwhi ch Odysse y pa idBray a cash su m

as “ pa ym en t i n fu ll ” fo r hi s re se archfil e. Bray
se ek s t o re sc in d t hi s wri tt enco nt ractan d re in st at e th e o rig in al ora l ag reem en t. Afte r ex ecu ti ng th e wri tt enco nt ract , Bray le arn edth atOdysse y ha d b een se arch in g fo r th e Merch an t Ro ya l , andth atth e co m

pa ny hadfou nda su nk en ve ss el itbe li ev edto be th e Sp an is h c arg o v es se l. Fo ll owi ng Odysse y ’s di sc ov ery, th e co m pany ini ti at edin rem

pro ceed in gs to cla im

own ers hi p o f th e v es se l, an d Bray m ov edto in te rv en e. Afte r pr el im in ary pr oc eed in gs , ho wev er, i t b ecame ap pa ren t tha t the wreck ag e d is co ve redby O dyss ey was n otth e Mer ch an t Ro ya l
. As a re su lt , th e ri gh t t o t he Mer ch an t Ro ya l was n o l on ge r be fo re the co urt, an d th e d is tri ctco urt cl os edth e in rem pro ceed in gs . Hav in g d is m is se d t he un de rlyin g a ct io n, the co urt s uasp on te ord eredBray to sh ow caus e why his in te rv en in g c om pl ai ntsh ou ldno t b e d is m is se d fo r la ckof
subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on . After r ecei vi ng subm is si on s fr om bo th pa rti es , th e co urt d is m is se d B ray’ s s ui t, co nc lu di ng th atitwas n otco gn iz ab le infed eral co urt. Thi s ap pe al fol lo wed
.

“ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt's de te rm in at io n t ha t i t i s wi th ou t s ub ject m at te r
3juri sd ic ti on de no vo .” Sea Ves se l, In c. v. Re y es , 23 F.3d34 5, 3 47 (11 th Cir
.

19 94 ). In s o d oi ng , we are m in df ul of t he Supr em e Co urt’s co m m an d t ha t

“ [n ]orm al pra ct ic e p erm it s a p arty to est ab li sh juri sd ic ti on at t he ou ts etof acas e b y
m ean s o f a n on fri vo lo us ass ert io n o f juri sd ic ti on al ele m en ts .” Je ro m e B. Gruba rt, In c. v. Gre atLake s Dre dg e & Do ckCo ., 51 3 U.S. 5 27 , 53 7– 38 , 11 5 S . Ct. 1 04 3, 10 50 (19 95 ) (i nt ern al cit at io ns om it te d) . This m ax im ap pl ie s equa ll y

to adm ira lt y
an d n on -ad m ira lty

cla im s al ik e. Id
. Upo n ath or ou gh rev ie w of t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs an d t he di st ric t co urt’s o rd er, we ho ldth atBray has bro ug hta pr op er fed eral cla im . In re le va ntpa rt, t he di st ric t
co urt co nc lu de d t ha t Br ay fai le d t o s etou t a c la im

co gn iz ab le inadm ira lt y juri sd ic ti on be cau se , “ [a]ltho ug h b ot h B ray’ s re se arch an d Ody ss ey ’s ob li ga ti on to pa y pe rta in to th e lo cat io n o f a s hi p, n ei th er the res earc h a gr eem en t n orth e pu rp orte d o ral ag reem en t am ou ntto a m ari ti m e co nt ract .” Thi s was so , th e co urt
reas on ed , “be cau se ne it he r co nt ractin vo lv es m ari ti m e co m m erce .” W e can no t ag ree. Rat he r, we co nc lu de “ th at‘ th e [co nt ract s] her e h a[v e] a m or e g enui ne ly
sa lt y fla vo r.’” Norfo lkSo . R.R. Co . v. Kirby, 543 U.S. 14 , 22 , 12 5 S . Ct. 3 85 , 39 2 (2 00 4) (qu ot in g Ko ss ic k v . Uni te d F ru itCo ., 36 5 U.S. 7 31 , 74 2, 8 1 S . Ct. 8 86 , 89 4 (1 96 1) ). 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 3 s ta te s: “ The di st ric t co urts sh al l h av e o rig in al
4juri sd ic ti on , exc lu si ve of t he co urts of t he Sta te s, o f: ( 1) [a]ny civ il cas e o f adm ira lt y or m ari ti m e juri sd ic ti on .” The S up rem e Co urt h as ex pl ai ne d t ha t [t]o as cert ai n whe th er a co nt ract is a m ari ti m e on e, we ca n n o t lo ok to whe th er a sh ip or othe r ve ss el was in vo lv ed in th e di sp ut e. . . . Nor can we si m pl y lo ok to th e pl ace of th e co ntract ’s fo rm at io n or pe rfo rm an ce. In st ead , th e an swe r de pe nd s up on . . . th e na tu re a n d c h a r a ct er of th e co nt ract , an d th e tru e cri te rio n is whe th e r i t ha s refe ren ce to m ari ti m e se rv ic e o r m ari ti m e tr an sa ct io ns . Nor fo lkSo . R.R., 54 3 U.S. at24 , 12 5 S . Ct. at39 3 (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d)
. Thu s, o urtas k i s t o d et erm in e whe th er “ th e n atur e an d c ha ract er o f th e co nt ract. . . ha s re fere nc e to m ari ti m e se rv ic e o r m ari ti m e tr an sa ct io ns .” Id
. W e are pe rs ua de d h ere t ha t co nt ract s t o p ro vi de res earc h t o a ss is t i n l oc at in g
an d re co ve rin g asu nk enve ss el are m ari ti m e in na tu re. Esp eci al ly whe re, as Bray al le ge s h ap pe ne d h ere, the ag reem en t al lo cat eda pa rti al sh are o f th e v es se l’s
reco ve ry in reco gn it io n o f th e p art ie s’ join t ef fo rts to reco ve r th e Mer ch an t Ro ya l , th es e co nt ract s ar e an al og ou s t o t ho se lo ng he ldto be co gn iz ab le inadm ira lt y . Fo r ex am pl e, in Norf

ol k S o. R.R . Co., the Supr em e Co urt re affi rm ed“ th ata sh ip own er’s p ro m is e to ass um e res po ns ib il it y foran y im pr op er treat m en t h is
se am anm ig htrece iv e ata New Yorkho sp it al was am ari ti m e co nt ract [,]
. . . [b ]ecaus e th e p ro m is e was in furth eran ce o f a ‘pecu li arl y m ari ti m e co nc ern .’ ” 5 43 U.S. at 2 4– 25 , 12 5 S . Ct. at39 3 (d is cu ss in g Ko ss ic k, 3 65 U.S. at 7 36 –3 8, 8 1 S . Ct. at88 4) . W e h av e si m il arl y tre at edinrem

act io ns co nc ern in g s al va ge as f al li ng 5withi n t he sco pe of f ed eral adm ira lty

juri sd ic ti on . See Trea su re Sa lv or s, In c. v. Uni de nt ifi edWreck edan d Ab an do ne d S ai li ng Vess el , 56 9 F .2d33 0, 3 33 -3 36 (5t h Ci r. 19 78 ). Ind eed , adm ira lt y juri sd ic ti on is pro pe r whe re p art ie s ar e li ti ga ti ng 1 th ei r ri gh ts to tre as ur e fo un d o n alo ng -s in ce d is co ve redsh ip . Treas ur e Sal vo rs , In c. v. Un id en ti fie d Wreck edan d Ab an do ne d S ai li ng Vess el , 64 0 F .2d56 0, 5 66 (5 th Cir . 19 81 ). Bray’ s co nt ract s wi th Odysse y , furni sh in g s pe ci fic res earc h i nt o th e lo cat io n o f a s un ke n v es se l tha t fa ci li ta te d Ody ss ey ’s effo rts to fin d and
reco ve r th atve ss el , hav e a s im il ar “pe cu li arl y m ari ti m e co nc ern .” Norf ol k S o. R.R., 5 43 U.S. at 2 4– 25 , 12 5 S . Ct. at39 3 (d is cu ss in g Ko ss ic k, 3 65 U.S. at 73 6– 38 , 81 S. Ct. at88 4) ; s ee al so New Jer se y Ste am Nav. Co . v. Me rch an t’s Ban k o f Bo st on , 47 U.S. 34 4, 4 21 (18 48 ) (quo ti ng Zane v. Th e Bri g P res id en t, 3 0 F. Cas . 90 9, 9 10 (18 24 )) (re co gn iz in g t ha t co nt ract“ co nc ern [in g] th e n av ig at io n o f th e se a” i s co gn iz ab le in adm ira lt y ). Thi s co nc lu si on is bo ls te redby the Seco ndCir cu it ’s recen t d eci si on in W il li am so n v . Reco ve ry

Ltd ., 54 2 F .3d43 (2dCir . 20 08 ). In t ha t ca se , th e pl ai nt iff s co nt ract edto pro vi de th e d efen dantwith s on ar equi pm en t u se fu l i n lo cat in g s un ke n t reas ur e. Id . at 4 7. In ex ch an ge , th e d efen da ntpro m is edto sh are

In Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir.1981) (en ba nc), this cour

t 1 adopted a s binding pre cede nt all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981. 6a p erce nt ag e o f th e rec ov ery with t he pl ai nt iff s, b utaft er ac tu al ly recov eri ng th e tre as ur e, refu se d t o p ay . Id. The pl ai nt iff s b ro ug htsu itinfed eral co urt, al le gi ng th atth e co ntract s re nd eredth e p art ie s s ub ject t o m ari ti m e juri sd ic ti on . Id. at 47 –4 8. Bo th th e d is tri ctco urt an d S eco ndCir cu itag reed , reas on in g t ha t the
na tu re o f th e co ntract s was “ sa lt y ” b ecau se th ey “were b y th ei r te rm s en te redin
co nn ect io n wi th m ari ti m e co m m erci al ve ntur e.” Id . at 4 9 (quo ta ti on m ark s om it te d) . This co nn ect io n, the co urt re as on ed , neg at edth e d efen da nt ’s arg um en t th atth e co ntract s wer e n on -m ari ti m e b ecau se th ey were i de nt ic al to an y

ot he r em pl oym en t o r as si st an ce co nt ract . Id. Fac edwith asi m il ar ci rcu m st an ce i n t hi s cas e—a n e xc ha ng e o f res earc h fo r a p erce nt ag e o f th e sp oi ls th atres earc h h el ps un co ve r—we fin d o ursi st er ci rcu it ’s reas on in g h ig hl y pe rs ua si ve . Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we co nc lu de th atBray’ s cl ai m is pro pe rly
co gn iz ab le un de r fed eral adm ira lt y juri sd ic ti on . Acco rd in gl y , we rev ers e th e

2 jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt d is m is si ng th is cas e, an d re m an d fo r furth er pr oc eed in gs co ns is te ntwith t hi s o pi ni on . REVERSED an d R EMANDED.

Havingconclude d that admiralty jurisdiction is proper, we need not a ddress B ray ’s 2 alternative jurisdictional arguments. 7