Opinion ID: 731036
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Requirements for Making a Colorable Claim to the Brother Jonathan

Text: 21 The State argues that the Eleventh Amendment limits the showing required to make a colorable claim to ownership of an abandoned shipwreck. It reasons that [i]f a state has to prove the merits of its ownership claim in order to establish its Eleventh Amendment immunity, then it has no Eleventh Amendment immunity. Thus, in cases involving a state's assertion of ownership of wrecks on its submerged lands, the State asserts, it is inappropriate to adopt the rule of ITSI TV, which requires that the State demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that it is entitled to immunity. 3 F.3d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir.1993). Rather, citing Marx v. Government of Guam, the State asserts that it should be required to demonstrate only that the shipwreck is on state submerged lands and that there is a state statute giving it title to shipwrecks on its submerged lands. The State's argument is without merit. 22 In Marx v. Government of Guam, Guam claimed two shipwrecks located on its submerged lands and argued that sovereign immunity precluded the exercise of federal jurisdiction over the wrecks in an in rem admiralty action. 866 F.2d at 295. The court expressly did not base its decision on the ASA because that case was initiated prior to that statute's adoption and the Act specifically exempts such proceedings. Id. at 300; see 43 U.S.C. § 2106(c). Rather, its decision was based on Guam's Underwater Historic Property Act, which conveyed to Guam broad title and control over property located on its submerged lands. Id. at 300-301. The court rejected the argument that adoption of the ASA indicated that the previously enacted Guam statute was invalid, finding that in adopting the ASA Congress merely wanted to clarify the effect of the Submerged Lands Act and did not intend to express an opinion about preexisting law. Id. On the basis of the Guam statute and the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1311, the court found that Guam had a colorable claim to the wrecks and dismissed the case on the basis of Guam's sovereign immunity. 23 The State of California asserts that the facts in this case are virtually identical to those in Marx v. Government of Guam because the Brother Jonathan is located on California's submerged lands and Cal.Pub.Res.Code § 6313 asserts title to abandoned shipwrecks on state submerged lands. Thus, it argues, it has made an adequate showing to establish a colorable claim to the Brother Jonathan and this case should be dismissed on the basis of sovereign immunity. 24 However, the State's argument fails to take into account the impact of the adoption of the ASA on the requirements for making a colorable claim to a wreck. In adopting the ASA, Congress preempted state laws which purported to take title to all shipwrecks on their submerged lands, at least to the extent that such laws took title to shipwrecks that did not meet the requirements of the ASA. Thus, while the Government of Guam was able to make a colorable claim under its broad statute, it follows that a more extensive showing is required in this case, in which the ASA applies, to make a colorable claim to the Brother Jonathan. 25 Furthermore, a federal court has both the power and duty to determine whether a case falls within its subject matter jurisdiction. See United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 291, 67 S.Ct. 677, 694-95, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947); see also Seabird, 811 F.Supp. at 1312 fn. 9 (Presumably, the ASA does not affect the federal court's jurisdiction to resolve questions relating to its jurisdiction.). Therefore, it was appropriate for the district court to require the State to present evidence that the ASA applied to the Brother Jonathan, i.e., that it was abandoned and either embedded or eligible for listing in the National Register, before dismissing the case. Otherwise, as DSR points out, the State could receive immunity simply by asserting that it was entitled to it. For a federal court to renounce jurisdiction over an admiralty case on the basis of a mere assertion of entitlement to immunity on the part of the State is inconsistent with the court's duty to assess whether it has jurisdiction. 26 The State also argues that the district court erroneously relied on ITSI TV in imposing on the State the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the ASA applies to the Brother Jonathan. In ITSI TV, this court addressed the question, who bears the burden of persuasion when a putative state entity claims immunity from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment? 3 F.3d at 1291. There, a television production company sued California State Fair and Exposition and various district agricultural associations for copyright infringement. Id. The defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that they were arms of the State and therefore were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Id. They further argued that because Eleventh Amendment immunity is a jurisdictional bar, the burden is on the plaintiffs to establish that the defendants are not entitled to such immunity. Id. 27 The court rejected the defendants' argument, holding instead that Eleventh Amendment immunity, whatever its jurisdictional attributes, should be treated as an affirmative defense, which must be proved by the party that asserts it and would benefit from its acceptance. Id. In reaching this conclusion, the court drew on the law governing the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1602-11, and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 1346. Both acts place the burden on the defendant to prove that it is entitled to immunity, and the former explicitly requires that the defendant demonstrate its entitlement to immunity by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 1292. The court in ITSI TV also points out that Eleventh Amendment immunity is most likely to be the subject of dispute when a complex institutional arrangement makes it unclear whether a given entity ought to be treated as an arm of the State. Id. Because the details of these institutional arrangements are peculiarly within the knowledge of the party claiming immunity, considerations of fairness support placing the burden of proof on the party claiming to be a state entity. Id. (internal quotations omitted). 28 The State argues that this case is distinguishable from ITSI TV because it does not concern the defendant's status as a state entity. Rather, to determine whether or not the State was entitled to immunity, the district court in this case evaluated the strength of the State's claim to title of the Brother Jonathan under the ASA and Cal.Pub.Res.Code § 6313. As a result, the district court required the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the shipwreck was abandoned and that it was embedded in the ocean floor or eligible for listing in the National Register. The State argues that facts relating to these questions, in contrast to the one at issue in ITSI, are not peculiarly within the knowledge of the party claiming immunity, but instead, within the knowledge of DSR. Therefore, the State argues, the burden should be on DSR rather than the State to demonstrate that the State does not have a colorable claim to the Brother Jonathan. Id. 29 While the State is correct that the factual question in ITSI TV differs from the one at issue in this case, it does not follow that the burden should be on the plaintiff to establish that the State is immune under the Eleventh Amendment. In ITSI TV, the court draws analogies to both the FSIA and the FTCA. In doing so, it makes no distinction between cases involving the defendant's status as an agent of the State and cases in which a party's entitlement to immunity turns on other issues. Further, the State of California cites no authority for the proposition that such a distinction should be made. We find that, according to the reasoning of the court in ITSI TV, the party asserting immunity has the burden to establish that it is entitled to immunity even if the determination of that issue touches the merits of the claim. 30 Finally, in addressing the questions of abandonment, embeddedness, and historical significance of the wreck under the ASA, a federal court does not adjudicate the state's rights. The ASA does not vest title to wrecks that satisfy its requirements directly in the state. Rather, it provides that the federal government may assert title to such wrecks. See 43 U.S.C. § 2105(a). Only after the federal government takes title to the abandoned shipwreck may title then be transferred to the state. 43 U.S.C. § 2105(c). Thus, a federal court may adjudicate the question of whether a wreck meets the requirements of the ASA without implicating the Eleventh Amendment. 5 Therefore, we hold that the district court did not err in requiring the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. 31