Opinion ID: 2777755
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Catlin II

Text: On May 13, 2013, the district court entertained a motion for reconsideration of its ruling in Catlin I. Although the court continued to adhere to its finding that the PERSEVERANCE failed to meet the Lozman standard as to what constitutes a vessel for the purposes of admiralty jurisdiction, it nevertheless concluded that admiralty jurisdiction was present because the central issue of the controversy concerned a maritime contract -- i.e., the Policy -- the primary objective of which was essentially maritime [in] nature and relates to navigation, business or commerce of the sea. Catlin (Syndicate 2003) at Lloyd's v. San Juan Towing & 5 In so ruling, the district court rejected the Report and Recommendation issued by the magistrate judge, who had found (prior to the announcement of the new Lozman test) that the PERSEVERANCE was a vessel. -9- Marine Servs., Inc., 946 F. Supp. 2d 256, 260 (D.P.R. 2013) (Catlin II); see also Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. James N. Kirby, Pty Ltd., 543 U.S. 14, 24-25 (2004). It also ruled that Catlin's complaint properly pleaded diversity jurisdiction and found diversity to be an alternate ground for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, even if not in admiralty. See Catlin II, 946 F. Supp. 2d at 267.