home
about the group
appellate attorneys
briefs
docket reports
oral arguments
news
contact
 
SUPREME COURT DOCKET REPORT
OCTOBER TERM 2012
DECISION ALERT


October Term, 2012

January 15, 2013

DECISION ALERT
Today the Supreme Court issued one decision, described below, of interest to the business community.


Federal Admiralty Jurisdiction—“Vessel” Status

Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, No. 11-626 (described in the February 21, 2012, Docket Report)

Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, No. 11-626

Under federal admiralty and maritime law, a “person providing necessaries to a vessel” has a maritime lien that may be enforced through an in rem civil action against the vessel. 46 U.S.C. § 31342. The Rules of Construction Act, 1 U.S.C. § 3, defines “[t]he word ‘vessel’ [to] include[] every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.” Today, in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, No. 11-626, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner’s floating home was not a “vessel” for purposes of that Act.

The Court’s decision in this case will be of general interest to commercial owners of floating structures, including those in the casino, restaurant, and hotel industries. In addition to determining whether disputes over floating structures are subject to federal admiralty jurisdiction and federal tort law, the Court’s decision will likely have consequences for whether these structures are subject to various tax, employment, and safety laws that apply to “vessels.”

Petitioner Lozman owned a two-story floating home, which he kept docked in a marina owned by respondent City of Riviera Beach, Florida. After unsuccessfully attempting to evict Lozman, the City filed a federal admiralty lawsuit in rem against the floating home, seeking a maritime lien for docking fees and damages for trespass. The district court ruled that the home was a “vessel” and awarded the City both docking fees and nominal damages. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the home qualified as a vessel because it was “capable” of movement over water. Slip. op. 2.

In a 7-2 opinion by Justice Breyer, the Supreme Court reversed. Focusing primarily on the statutory phrase “capable of being used…as a means of transportation on water” (slip op. 3), the Court reasoned that “‘[t]ransportation’ involves the ‘conveyance (of things or persons) from one place to another’” (id. at 4-5), emphasizing that this definition should be applied “in a ‘practical,’ not a ‘theoretical,’ way” (id. at 5). The Court then concluded that a structure cannot be used as a means of transportation on water “unless a reasonable observer, looking to [its] physical characteristics and activities, would consider it designed to a practical degree for carrying people or things over water.” Id.

Applying this interpretation, the Court determined that Lozman’s home was not a vessel because it had no steering mechanism; did not have the capacity to generate or store electricity; could not propel itself; had a rectangular bottom, “unraked” hull, rooms resembling “nonmaritime living quarters,” and French windows rather than portholes; and could travel over water only by being towed. Slip op. 5-6. In responding to counterarguments raised by the City and its amici, the Court emphasized that the test for “vessel” status does not contain a “subjective element” and instead “permit[s] consideration only of objective evidence of a waterborne transportation purpose.” Id. at 11-12.

Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Kennedy joined. While agreeing with the Court that “an objective assessment of a watercraft’s purpose or function governs whether that structure is a vessel,” the dissent maintained that the Court had “creat[ed] a novel and unnecessary ‘reasonable observer’ reformulation” of the legal standard (slip. op. 1), and had given unfairly short shrift to existing lower-court case law on Section 3 “vessel” status, which “offer[ed] substantial guidance for how objectively to determine whether a watercraft is practically capable of transport and thus qualifies as a § 3 vessel” (id. at 5). The dissent would have stated the objective test somewhat differently and then remanded for further fact-finding under it.

Any questions about this case should be directed to Dan Himmelfarb (+1 202 263 3035) in our Washington, DC office.


Mayer Brown's Supreme Court & Appellate practice ordinarily distributes a Docket Report when the Supreme Court grants certiorari in a case of interest to the business community and a Docket Report-Decision Alert when the Court decides such a case. We hope that you find the Docket Reports and Decision Alerts useful, and welcome feedback on them (which should be addressed to Richard B. Katskee, their general editor, at rkatskee@mayerbrown.com or +1 202 263 3222).

Feel free to forward this message to anyone who you believe might be interested in the Decision Alert.

Please visit us at appellate.net

Mayer Brown Supreme Court Docket Reports provide information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest to our clients and friends. They are not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and are not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed.

 
 
© 2014. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved. --  Legal Notices | Attorney Advertising

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the “Mayer Brown Practices”). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. “Mayer Brown” and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.