Opinion ID: 3162571
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Administrative and Federal Court Proceedings

Text: On May 3, 2011, Adenariwo filed two separate but identical complaints—Informal Docket Nos. 1920(I) and 1921(I)—against BDP and Zim for informal adjudication under subpart S of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. See 46 C.F.R. §§ 502.301-305. The complaints allege that BDP and Zim violated Section 10(d)(1) of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. § 41102(c), by engaging in unreasonable practices when handling the concrete masonry equipment. While Adenariwo alleges that he suffered a loss of $240,606 per container, he chose to pursue his claims through the informal adjudication process, which is limited to 4 claims of $50,000 or less. See 46 C.F.R. § 502.301(b). Thus, Adenariwo sought a total of $100,000 or $50,000 per container. Pursuant to the Commission’s Rules, a settlement officer was appointed to handle both informal dockets. On May 26, 2011, for purposes of clarity, the settlement officer deemed Informal Docket No. 1920(I) to seek reparations for Container 1 and Informal Docket No. 1921(I) to seek reparations for Container 2. The settlement officer also ordered that the dockets be consolidated, but stated that the consolidation would not affect Adenariwo’s requested relief. On April 18, 2012, the settlement officer issued a decision and order dismissing the claim relating to Container 1 for failure to timely file the complaint within the Shipping Act’s three year statute of limitations, see 46 U.S.C. § 41301(a), and ordering Adenariwo to obtain a valid assignment from MacBride of the Container 2 claim in Informal Docket No. 1921(I). Adenariwo timely filed a petition for reconsideration of the settlement officer’s decision to dismiss Informal Docket No. 1920(I), which the settlement officer denied. In another decision issued that same day, the settlement officer also determined that (1) MacBride had assigned its claims to Adenariwo and (2) Zim had violated Section 10(d)(1) of the Shipping Act by refusing to release Container 2 because of the unpaid demurrage fees from Container 1. See Adebisi A. Adenariwo v. BDP Int’l, Zim Integrated Shipping, Ltd. and Its Agent (LANSAL) et al., Informal Dkt. No. 1921(I), at 8-11 (F.M.C. Mar. 7, 2013). The settlement officer awarded Adenariwo reparations in the amount of $18,308.94 for the loss of the equipment in Container 2, but denied Adenariwo the remainder of his requested relief finding that he could have mitigated his losses by paying the demurrage fees on the two 5 containers, thereby securing the release of the equipment in Container 2. Id. at 11-16. Pursuant to the Commission’s rules governing informal adjudications, the Commission has discretionary authority to review a settlement officer’s decision. See 46 C.F.R. § 502.304(g). On March 22, 2013, the Commission declined to review the settlement officer’s decision not to reconsider the dismissal of Informal Docket No. 1920(I), stating that the decision was “administratively final.” On April 10, 2013, the Commission determined that it would review the settlement officer’s decision relating to Informal Docket No. 1921(I). On August 2, 2013, Adenariwo filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking review of the Commission’s decisions in Informal Docket Nos. 1920(I) and 1921(I). The district court dismissed the case, finding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and observing that the settlement officer’s decision regarding Informal Docket No. 1921(I) was not ripe for review because it was still under the Commission’s consideration. See MacBride Nig. Ltd. (Adebisi Adenariwo) v. FMC, Civ. No. 13-1201, 2013 WL 6175823 (D.D.C. Nov. 26, 2013). On February 20, 2014, the Commission issued an order affirming the settlement officer’s decision in Informal Docket No. 1921(I). See Adebisi Adenariwo v. BDP Int’l, Zim Integrated Shipping, Ltd. and Its Agent (LANSAL) et al., Informal Dkt. No. 1921(I) (F.M.C. Feb. 20, 2014). Adenariwo filed his petition for review of the Commission’s decisions with this Court on March 21, 2014.