Opinion ID: 1239866
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Eleventh Amendment immunity, the ASA, and the importance of protecting federal jurisdiction over admiralty claims

Text: As GLEG has pointed out, requiring a salvor to disclose the precise location of a shipwreck before federal jurisdiction has been secured creates a risk that the state may take actual possession of the vessel in an attempt to divest the federal courts of jurisdiction over the salvor's claim. No court, however, has yet addressed what would happen if a state were to do so in an effort to prevent a federal court from determining the rights of the parties under the ASA. Although the parties dispute both the definition and feasibility of actual possession in the present circumstances, we have no need to decide the issue because the district court did not rest its opinion on the ground that Michigan lacked the ability to take possession of The Griffin. The district court instead dismissed GLEG's jurisdictional concerns by expressing doubt that Michigan would try to divest the federal court of jurisdiction. Specifically, the court wrote that GLEG's theory is premised on Intervenors, Michigan, effectively acting in bad faith in an effort to deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction, [but the] Court has no basis for ascribing such intentions to Intervenors. The court also noted that GLEG has not offered any evidence which could be construed to support an inference that Intervenors intend to take actual physical possession of the wreck. A review of the record, however, suggests that GLEG's concern that Michigan might attempt to divest the district court of jurisdiction is not unfounded. Michigan filed multiple motions claiming Eleventh Amendment immunity and asserting that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over GLEG's claim to The Griffin. Under these circumstances, GLEG reasonably sought assurances from the district court that disclosure of the precise location of the vessel would not lead to divestment of federal jurisdiction over its claim. The federal courts have historically recognized that admiralty law is designed to encourage[] salvors to undertake risks to rescue imperiled maritime property, Yukon Recovery, L.L.C. v. Certain Abandoned Prop., 205 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2000), and to encourage rescue generally. Int'l Aircraft Recovery, L.L.C. v. Unidentified, Wrecked and Abandoned Aircraft, 218 F.3d 1255, 1261 (11th Cir.2000). As a result, federal courts have sought to retain jurisdiction over salvor's claims. Fathom Exploration, L.L.C. v. Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels, 352 F.Supp.2d 1218, 1224-25 (S.D.Ala.2005)(discussing the importance of retaining federal jurisdiction over admiralty claims in the first instance in order to encourage and protect salvage operations). One way that the courts have protected admiralty jurisdiction is by refusing to allow acts of bad faith to be used to divest an admiralty court of jurisdiction. See, e.g., The Rio Grande, 90 U.S. (23 Wall.) 458, 465, 23 L.Ed. 158 (1874) (holding that the improper removal of the res from the custody of the federal government does not destroy subject-matter jurisdiction over an in rem admiralty claim); 2 Am. Jur.2d Admiralty § 32 (2007) (emphasizing the importance of protecting federal jurisdiction from acts of bad faith, and stating that [w]here a vessel has been seized and has come under the jurisdiction of the court, jurisdiction is not lost by reason of its later accidental, fraudulent, or improper removal from the territorial ambit of the court's jurisdiction). The Supreme Court has made clear that courts faced with claims under the ASA should likewise seek to retain federal jurisdiction to fully adjudicate the parties' disputes. California v. Deep Sea Research, Inc., 523 U.S. 491, 508, 118 S.Ct. 1464, 140 L.Ed.2d 626 (1998). In Deep Sea Research, the Court held that where an admiralty claim is brought to the federal courts and a state intervenes to assert its rights under the ASA, the Eleventh Amendment may not be used to bar complete adjudication of the competing claims in federal court. Id. This ruling is clearly designed to protect federal jurisdiction over both the salvor's salvage claim and the state's claim under the ASA. We therefore hold that, before requiring GLEG to disclose the precise location of a shipwreck, the district court should have perfected federal jurisdiction. A discussion of the manner in which the court should have done so is elaborated below.