Personal Injury Law

ALTHOUGH DISTRICT COURT ARTICULATED CORRECT STANDARD TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN ARRESTING PARTY WAS ENTITLED TO A WARRANT OF ARREST, IT IMPROPERLY TURNED SUPP. R. CERTAIN ADM. & MAR. CL. E(4)(F) HEARING INTO A MINI-TRIAL AND POSED A MUCH HIGHER BURDEN THAN W

By Lipcon, Margulies & Alsina, P.A.

PDS GAMING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, CDD ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Intervenors-Plaintiffs, versus M/V OCEAN JEWELL OF ST. PETERSBURG, Official Number 7625823, her boats, engines, tackle, apparel, furnishings, equipment and appurtenances, in rem, et al., Defendants, M/V CASINO ROYALE, Official Number 7350442, her boats, engines, tackle, apparel, furnishings, equipment and appurtenances in rem, 21 MIAMI OCEANS INTERNATIONAL LTD., et al., Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 24407
October 15, 2007, Decided

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff gaming corporation filed an interlocutory appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida which summarily denied its motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a) for a new trial and its motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) to alter or amend the district court's order vacating the arrest of a gambling ship.

OVERVIEW: The underlying case arose out of various agreements related to the purchase of over $ 7,000,000 in gaming equipment. After several demands for payment, the gaming corporation had filed an in rem action for conversion, replevin, and on a common count for goods had and received against the gambling ship for the tortious transfer of the gaming devices sold to another ship. Subsequently, the ship was arrested. The appellate court first concluded it had jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine. The appellate court also concluded that the appeal was not moot. The appellate court then concluded that the district court abused its discretion by summarily denying the motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a) without considering it on the merits. Further, while the district court articulated the correct standard to determine whether an arresting party was entitled to a warrant of arrest, it improperly turned the Supp. R. Certain Adm. & Mar. Cl. E(4)(f) hearing into a mini-trial and posed a much higher burden on the gaming corporation than was authorized, applied an incorrect legal standard to the maritime law of conversion, and failed to consider the claim for replevin.

OUTCOME: The appellate court vacated the decision of the district court and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

Full post as published by Cruise Ship Law on October 01, 2007 (boomark / email).