Opinion ID: 2804455
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Overruling Frontera

Text: Finally, perhaps realizing that this Circuit’s law does not support its case, IMC asks us to overrule Frontera and fashion an alternative standard for wrongful attachment, one under which “Dantzler would be exposed to liability for the 3 Because we agree with the district court that IMC has failed to carry its burden to survive summary judgment, we need not address Dantzler’s affirmative defense that, even if the arrest of the Industrial Fighter rose above the level of negligence, Dantzler was relying in good faith on the advice of counsel. 16 Case: 14-15130 Date Filed: 05/29/2015 Page: 17 of 18 negligent acts and misrepresentations of its attorney and agent.” Frontera, IMC complains, [P]roduces an inequitable result because it places an immense burden on the innocent owner or charterer of an improperly seized vessel, requiring that the owner, charterer or other affected party prove by a preponderance of the evidence the arrestor’s actions arose from malice, bad faith or a reckless disregard for the affected party’s legal rights. Whatever may be the merits of IMC’s criticism of Frontera and the undesirable policy interests that it allegedly promotes, we are bound by it as our precedent. We have relied on Frontera. See Furness I, 772 F.2d at 808; Furness II, 854 F.2d at 411. Our district courts have also done so. See, e.g., Coastal Barge, 901 F.Supp. at 328-29; Hyundai Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd. v. M/V Saibos FDS, 163 F.Supp.2d 1307, 1315-16 (N.D. Ala. 2001); John W. Stone Oil Distrib., Inc. v. M/V Miss Bern, 663 F.Supp. 773, 778 (S.D. Ala. 1987). Other courts have cited it approvingly. See, e.g., U.S. Express Lines, Ltd. v. Higgins, 281 F.3d 383, 392 n.4 (3d Cir. 2002); Arochem Corp. v. Wilomi, Inc., 962 F.2d 496, 499 (5th Cir. 1992); Central Oil, 821 F.2d at 51; Ocean Ship Supply, 729 F.2d at 974. Finally, as this Court has held since its inception, “a prior decision of the circuit (panel or en banc) c[annot] be overruled by a panel but only by the court sitting en banc.” Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981). Frontera is therefore precedent unless and until we overrule it en banc. We therefore must decline IMC’s invitation. 17 Case: 14-15130 Date Filed: 05/29/2015 Page: 18 of 18