Opinion ID: 3023556
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Connection with Maritime Activity Test

Text: The second prong of the admiralty jurisdiction test for tort claims has two components: (1) “whether the incident involved was of a sort with the potential to disrupt maritime commerce”; and (2) whether there is a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity, i.e., “whether a tortfeasor’s activity, commercial or noncommercial, on navigable waters is so closely related to activity traditionally subject to admiralty 17 law that the reasons for applying admiralty rules would apply in the suit at hand.” Grubart, 513 U.S. at 538–40.
Maritime Commerce The District Court concluded that, regardless whether the incident here was characterized as “the improper loading of cargo on a vessel docked at a port on navigable waters or the arrest of a vessel docked in navigable waters,” it had a “potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce.” We believe that the incident before us is better characterized as Sinochem’s alleged misrepresentations to the Chinese Admiralty Court that led to the arrest of the Vessel at port. Yet, we agree that, no matter how we define the incident, it had the potential to disrupt maritime commerce—and in fact did so, as the alleged misrepresentations resulted in the Vessel’s seizure. (And we note that making misrepresentations about another party’s conduct with respect to the shipment of goods and a bill of lading is generally likely to disrupt maritime commerce as between those two parties.) Thus, the first component of the connection with maritime activity inquiry is met.
Traditional Maritime Activity “[W]hether the general character of the activity giving rise to the incident shows a substantial relationship to traditional 18 maritime activity” is not a concept cabined narrowly or rigidly. Neely, 63 F.3d at 179 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358, 364 (1990) (“Our cases have made clear that the relevant ‘activity’ is defined not by the particular circumstances of the incident, but by the general conduct from which the incident arose.”). The Supreme Court has held that a “broad perspective” should be used in determining whether the activity underlying a claim has the requisite relationship to maritime activity, and has declined to hold that navigation is the only activity that could satisfy the substantial relationship test. Sisson, 497 U.S. at 367.15 15 In Sisson, the Court emphasized that [t]he fundamental interest giving rise to maritime jurisdiction is the protection of maritime commerce, and we have said that that interest cannot be fully vindicated unless all operators of vessels on navigable waters are subject to uniform rules of conduct. The need for uniform rules of maritime conduct and liability is not limited to navigation, but extends at least to any other activities traditionally undertaken by vessels, commercial or noncommercial. 497 U.S. at 367 (first emphasis in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 19 The District Court held that, under Sisson, the activity in this case met the substantial relationship test because, if activities undertaken by vessels have a substantial relationship to maritime activity, it logically follows that activities carried out to or against vessels would also have a substantial relationship to maritime activity. As such, the very serious act of arresting a vessel at a port sufficiently relates to maritime activity to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Malaysia, mem. op. at 8 (emphasis in original). Per Sisson and Neely, our focus in this inquiry must also include the activity giving rise to the seizure of the Vessel. See Sisson, 497 U.S. at 364; Neely, 63 F.3d at 179. As stated earlier, Sinochem’s alleged misrepresentations gave rise to the seizure of the Vessel. Looked at narrowly, it may seem that the act of making representations (or misrepresentations, as the case may be) to a court has no connection with maritime activity. But looking at Sinochem’s alleged conduct broadly, as we must, it was clearly undertaken 20 with the purpose of having the Vessel seized.16 Asking a court to have a vessel arrested, as Sinochem did here, is a wellestablished method of granting an admiralty court power to exercise authority over a ship, see Reed v. S.S. Yaka, 307 F.2d 203, 204 (3d Cir. 1962), rev’d on other grounds, 373 U.S. 410 (1963), and thus has a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity.17