Opinion ID: 2794639
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: 3d at 405 (Higginson, J., dissenting).

Text: 30 United States law. Consequently, Hebei Prince argues that the General Terms do not entitle DMCC to a maritime lien. To be sure, the General Terms’ choice-of-law provision could have been written in a way that would avoid this question entirely. In Triton Marine, for example, the relevant clause stated that the “agreement shall be governed by and construed in all particulars by the laws of the United States of America[.]” 575 F.3d at 412. So, too, the Ninth Circuit has reviewed a choice-of-law provision that selected “the general maritime laws of the United States and applicable United States Statutes.” Flores v. Am. Seafoods Co., 335 F.3d 904, 918 n.8 (9th Cir. 2013). Either of these constructions clearly incorporates federal statutory maritime laws such as the FMLA. But even assuming, without deciding, that Hebei Prince’s reading of the term “General Maritime Law of the United States” is correct and the FMLA is not part of the “General Maritime Law of the United States,” Hebei Prince still cannot prevail. This is so because the General Terms alternatively provides if the “General Maritime Law of the United States is silent on the disputed issue, the law of the State of Florida [governs.]” (J.A. 34.) Florida law resolves the issue in favor of DMCC because Florida law must be deemed to include United States law—by case law or by statute. The Supreme Court has long stated that “‘a 31 fundamental principle in our system of complex national polity’ mandates that ‘the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States are as much a part of the law of every state as its own local laws and Constitution.’” Fidelity Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 157 (1982) (quoting Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U.S. 483, 490 (1879)). A choice-oflaw provision directing us to the laws of Florida thus encompasses federal statutory law, including the FMLA. See Atkinson v. General Elec. Credit Corp., 866 F.2d 396, 398-99 (11th Cir. 1989) (concluding, based in part on Fidelity Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, that “Georgia law includes federal law” where a choice-of-law provision selected “the laws of the State of Georgia” but was silent as to federal statutory law’s applicability). Accordingly, the General Terms’ choice-of-law provision authorizes DMCC to pursue a maritime lien under the FMLA. F. Hebei Prince alternatively argues that even if the FMLA applies to the transaction, DMCC is still not entitled to a maritime lien because it has not satisfied all of the requirements under the FMLA. Once again, we disagree. In relevant part, the FMLA provides that “a person providing necessaries to a vessel on the order of . . . a person 32 authorized by the owner” “has a maritime lien on the vessel” and “may bring a civil action in rem to enforce the lien.” 46 U.S.C. § 31342(a). The FMLA creates a presumption that charterers (e.g., Tramp Maritime) have such “authority to procure necessaries for” the Vessel. See § 31341(a)(4)(B). Hebei Prince contends that it produced proof rebutting this statutory presumption that Tramp Maritime had such authorization here. Alternatively, Hebei Prince maintains that the record demonstrates a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the presumption applies. It asserts DMCC had actual knowledge that Tramp Maritime was not authorized to enter into agreements that would give rise to a maritime lien against the Vessel and points to two prior contracts between Bunkerfuels Hellas and Tramp Maritime, where Tramp Maritime had placed no-lien stamps on the delivery receipts. Hebei Prince contends these prior acts provided DMCC cognizable notice that Tramp Maritime could not procure necessaries in an agreement that would bind the Vessel. In addition, Hebei Prince maintains that upon seeing the no-lien stamp affixed to the delivery receipt for the bunkers at issue here, DMCC’s sub-contractor APSCO could—and should—have engaged in self-help to immediately reclaim the bunkers. Hebei Prince asserts DMCC’s failure to take such prompt action following actual notice of the no-lien provision caused it to waive the right to a maritime lien. 33 We agree with the district court that no triable issue of fact exists on this issue. The statutory presumption discussed above can be rebutted only by proof that the seller had actual knowledge that the charterer lacked the ability to bind the vessel as part of the contract for necessaries. See Triton Marine, 575 F.3d at 418 n.5 (observing that in 1971 Congress recodified the FMLA “essentially to void ‘no lien’ clauses in charters, as long as the supplier did not have actual knowledge of such clause”); Lake Charles Stevedores, Inc. v. PROFESSOR VLADIMIR POPOV MV, 199 F.3d 220, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1999) (discussing cases in the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits holding the same, as well as recounting the changes in the statute leading to this conclusion). Put another way, “a supplier of necessaries ordered by a § 31341(a) entity subject to a no-lien clause not made known to the supplier has a maritime lien.” Lake Charles Stevedores, 199 F.3d at 225. None of the evidence Hebei Prince relies on demonstrates that DMCC had actual knowledge of the no-lien provision in Tramp Maritime’s charter party. Hebei Prince does not contend that it or Tramp Maritime ever notified DMCC or Bunkerfuels Hellas of the terms of their charter party. This is so despite the Bunker Confirmation clearly stating that Tramp Maritime “is presumed to have authority to bind the [Vessel] with a maritime lien.” (J.A. 21.) The Bunker Confirmation thus plainly contemplated 34 that a presumption of authority to obligate the Vessel existed, and there is no evidence that anyone attempted to notify DMCC to the contrary at any point between Tramp Maritime receiving the Bunker Confirmation and accepting delivery of the bunkers. The no-lien stamps affixed to prior delivery notices when Tramp Maritime was operating under prior charter parties is insufficient to provide actual knowledge of the current charter party. Those prior stamps say nothing about the terms of Tramp Maritime’s charter to operate the Vessel at the time it entered into the agreement set forth in the Bunker Confirmation. The primary case Hebei Prince relies upon to satisfy its burden, Belcher Oil Co. v. M/V GARDENIA, 766 F.2d 1508 (11th Cir. 1985), materially differs from the facts here. In Belcher Oil, the supplier was notified prior to delivery of the bunkers that the charter party contained a no-lien clause prohibiting the charterer from obligating the vessel. Id. at 1510. Only as “corroborat[ion]” of this finding of actual knowledge did the Eleventh Circuit also note that the charterer had put disclaimer stamps on the bunkering certificates for prior deliveries from the same seller. However, the presumption against lien authority was only rebutted because the evidence showed the supplier actually knew the charterer was bound by a no-lien clause before delivery of the fuel. By contrast, there is no proof in this case that DMCC actually knew that the operative 35 charter party contained a no-lien clause. Accordingly, Hebei Prince cannot rebut the presumption based on prior contracts between Tramp Maritime and Bunkerfuels. Hebei Prince’s second argument fares no better, as the nolien stamps affixed to the delivery notices did not provide timely actual notice of any no-lien clause in the charter party. This is so for at least two reasons. First, the Bunker Confirmation states that “[d]isclaimer stamps placed by [anyone] on the bunker receipt will have no effect and do not waive the seller’s lien.” (J.A. 21.) Despite this language, Tramp Maritime never contacted DMCC to convey the terms of the charter party or that it viewed the no-lien stamps as effective. Moreover, anyone reading the terms of the Bunker Confirmation would have reason to believe that even if a no-lien stamp was placed on the delivery receipt, it would be of no effect. Given the terms of the Bunker Confirmation, DMCC and its subcontractor APSCO both had reason to believe that any no-lien stamps were ineffective. Second, delivery of the bunkers fulfilled DMCC’s obligation under the Bunker Confirmation, and notice at that point of the no-lien provision would be too late to alter the terms of the existing agreement. Contrary to Hebei Prince’s assertion, DMCC was not required to engage in self-help and demand immediate return of the bunkers upon learning that a no-lien stamp had 36 been affixed to the delivery notice. The out-of-circuit case it relies on for this assertion is not binding on us. See Ferromet Res. v. Chemoil Corp., 5 F.3d 902, 903 (5th Cir. 1993). More importantly, the FMLA’s provisions were not at issue before that court, and it did not discuss the presumption that arises under § 31341(a) or what evidence is sufficient to rebut it. Id. Ferromet Resources involved a tort claim brought by the charterer against a supplier after the supplier of bunkers refused to unmoor from alongside the vessel until the delivery notice was signed without a no-lien stamp. The Eleventh Circuit held that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to when the supplier was notified that the charterer lacked authority to incur liens. If it was before delivery, then the charterer could likely recover damages incurred as a result of the delay caused by the supplier’s refusal to unmoor. Id. at 905. If the supplier was not notified of the no-lien clause until delivery, then the supplier may have been entitled to engage in self-help. Id. Nothing in Ferromet Resources suggests that a supplier must engage in self-help or attempt to retrieve delivered bunkers simply because a no-lien stamp has been placed on the delivery receipt. Accordingly, we conclude that § 31341(a)’s presumption of authority to procure necessaries applies to the Bunker Confirmation transaction. Hebei Prince failed to demonstrate or 37 even proffer evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether DMCC had actual knowledge of Tramp Maritime’s lack of authority to bind the Vessel. Given that the remaining § 31342(a) requirements are either uncontested or have already been resolved in DMCC’s favor, we also conclude that DMCC was entitled to bring this action to enforce a maritime lien against the Vessel.