Opinion ID: 2777755
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Catlin I

Text: On April 8, 2013, the district court granted SJT's motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed without prejudice the claim brought by Catlin, concluding that under the recently decided case of Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 133 S. Ct. 735 (2013), the court lacked admiralty jurisdiction over this controversy because -8- the PERSEVERANCE was not a vessel.5 See Catlin (Syndicate 2003) at Lloyd's v. San Juan Towing & Marine Servs, Inc., Civil Nos. 112093 (FAB); 11-2116 (FAB), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52307, at -38 (D.P.R. Apr. 8, 2013) (Catlin I). This ruling was based on the court's determination that the PERSEVERANCE did not meet the Lozman test for determining whether a floating structure was a vessel for admiralty jurisdiction purposes because a reasonable observer, looking to the PERSEVERANCE's physical characteristics and activities, would not consider it to be designed to any practical degree for carrying people or things on water. Id. at .