ALETA A. TRAUGER, District Judge.
Defendant Terry Segars, Jr. has filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) (Docket No. 18), to which the plaintiff, Wade Hickam, has filed a Response in opposition (Docket No. 20). Segars has also filed a Motion to Dissolve Injunction (Docket No. 19), to which Hickam has filed a Response in opposition (Docket No. 21). Hickam has also filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Docket No. 23), which Segars has not opposed.
For the reasons stated herein, the Motion to Dismiss will be granted, this case will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Motion to Dissolve Injunction will be granted, and the Motion to Amend will be denied as moot.
This case relates to an incident that occurred on May 20, 2012, in which Segars was injured in an accident involving a "Sea Doo" brand jet ski ("Sea Doo") owned by Hickam. As a result of injuries sustained in that accident, Segars filed an action against Hickam (among others) in Tennessee state court. See Terry S. Segars, Jr. v. Jon Daniel Burchfield, et al., Docket No. 2012-CV-1054 (Tenn. Cir. Ct. filed Aug. 3, 2012).
After Segars filed the state court action, Hickam filed this lawsuit to seek the protections afforded to vessel owners under the Limitation of Liability Act ("Limitation Act"), 46 U.S.C. § 30505 et seq. (2012),
Segars has moved the court to dissolve the injunction and dismiss the case, arguing that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. In particular, Segars argues that (1) the case does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1333 and (2) the Limitation Act does not provide an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction. In response, Hickam argues that the Limitation Act provides an independent basis for jurisdiction and that, even if it does not, the case satisfies the traditional requirements for admiralty jurisdiction.
Hickam has also filed a Motion for Leave to file a First Amended Complaint. The First Amended Complaint simply appears to add Victoria Hickam — Hickam's daughter — as a party plaintiff, on the basis that she, along with Hickam, "qualifies as an owner of the [jet ski]" for purposes of this action. (See Docket No. 23, Ex. A, First Am. Compl. at ¶ 2.) These amended allegations do not impact the court's analysis of the subject matter jurisdiction issue.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) governs dismissals of lawsuits for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. "Rule 12(b)(1) motions to dismiss ... generally come in two varieties: a facial attack or a factual attack." Gentek Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 491 F.3d 320, 330 (6th Cir.2007). A "facial attack" challenges the sufficiency of the plaintiff's allegations, in which all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint are taken as true; and a "factual attack" challenges the actual fact of subject matter jurisdiction, which is analyzed under summary judgment standards. Am. Telecom Co., L.L.C. v. Republic of Lebanon, 501 F.3d 534, 537 (6th Cir.2007). When considering a factual attack upon the court's jurisdiction, the court may weigh the evidence, and no presumption of truth applies to the plaintiff's factual allegations. Gentek, 491 F.3d at 330. "When a factual attack, also known as a `speaking motion,' raises a factual controversy, the district court must weigh the conflicting evidence to arrive at the factual predicate that subject-matter [jurisdiction] does or does not exist." Id. "In its review, the district court has wide discretion to allow affidavits, documents and even a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve jurisdictional facts." Id.
When subject matter jurisdiction has been challenged, the plaintiff has the burden of proving jurisdiction in order to survive the motion. Wisecarver v. Moore, 489 F.3d 747, 749 (6th Cir.2007). Here,
On May 20, 2012, Hickam's daughter and several other "young adults," including Jon Daniel Burchfield, Christopher Luke Wilson, and Tristan Lane, gathered on the shore of Old Hickory Lake in Gallatin, Tennessee. In an area between Burchfield's home and the shore of the lake, the Burchfield family had constructed an "earthen ramp" that rose towards the lake shore. The young adults were using the ramp as a take-off point for an inner tube that they had tethered to the Sea Doo, which was acting as a tow for the inner tube. One or more individuals would sit in the inner tube on the shore (i.e., on land) while an individual operating the Sea Doo (located in the water) would pull the inner tube up the ramp towards the lake shore. The individuals using the inner tube were then projected airborne off the ramp and would land in the water near the shoreline. The area near the shoreline was shallow enough that, after landing, individuals launched up the ramp in the inner tube could stand up.
One of these "launch" attempts resulted in an unfortunate accident. While Lane and Segars sat on the inner tube, Wilson began driving the Sea Doo to pull the tether, thereby pulling the tether taut. However, suddenly and without warning, the tether snapped at the end closest to the Sea Doo and sprang back at high tension toward the inner tube, which was still located on land. The high tension tether struck Segars across the face and caused him significant injuries, including the loss of one eye and partial loss of vision in the other eye, facial fractures, and a fractured clavicle.
Segars sued the Burchfields (Jon Daniel Burchfield and his parents), Hickam, and Wilson in Tennessee state court, asserting negligence-based theories of liability. According to the state court complaint filed by Segars and the Complaint filed by Hickam here, Hickam was the record owner of the jet ski at the time of the incident.
Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution vests federal courts with jurisdiction over all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Pursuant to this grant of authority, Congress has granted federal district courts original jurisdiction over "[a]ny civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) (2012).
Admiralty and maritime law includes provisions setting forth a host of special rights, duties, and procedures. Lewis & Clark Marine, 531 U.S. at 446, 121 S.Ct. 993. Among these provisions is the Limitation Act, which allows a vessel owner "to limit liability for damage or injury, occasioned without the owner's privity or knowledge, to the value of the vessel or the owner's interest in the vessel." Id.; see also In re Muer, 146 F.3d 410, 414 (6th Cir.1998). Hickam argues that, regardless of whether admiralty jurisdiction exists under § 1333, the Limitation Act provides an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court has expressly declined to address whether the Limitation Act provides an independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358, 359, n. 1, 110 S.Ct. 2892, 111 L.Ed.2d 292 (1990). In Sisson v. Ruby, the owner of a boat had argued — as does Hickam here — that federal courts retained admiralty jurisdiction over his case both under § 1333 and under the Limitation Act independently. The Court ultimately held that the case was subject to admiralty jurisdiction under § 1333. With respect to the Limitation Act issue, the Court stated the following in Footnote 1 to the opinion:
Id. at 359 n. 1, 110 S.Ct. 2892 (emphasis added). Accordingly, whether the Limitation Act independently confers subject matter jurisdiction is a question the Court has left open.
Although the Sixth Circuit has not yet addressed this open question, all of the sister circuits that have addressed this issue have uniformly concluded that the Limitation Act does not provide an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction — i.e., that the Limitation Act only applies to cases that otherwise qualify for admiralty jurisdiction. See David Wright Charter Serv. of N. Car., Inc. v. Wright, 925 F.2d 783, 785 (4th Cir.1991); Guillory v. Outboard Motor Corp., 956 F.2d 114, 115 (5th Cir.1992); In the Matter of Sisson, 867 F.2d 341, 349-350 (7th Cir.1989), rev'd on other grounds, 497 U.S. 358, 110 S.Ct. 2892, 111 L.Ed.2d 292 (1990); Three Buoys Houseboat Vacations U.S.A., Ltd. v. Morts, 921 F.2d 775, 779-80 (8th Cir.1990); Seven Resorts, Inc. v. Cantlen, 57 F.3d 771, 772-73 (9th Cir.1995); Lewis Charters,
Without addressing these decisions, Hickam relies on an archaic Supreme Court case, Richardson v. Harmon, 222 U.S. 96, 32 S.Ct. 27, 56 L.Ed. 110 (1911), in which the Court permitted the owners of a commercial steam barge that had collided with the abutment of a railway draw bridge to limit their liability for damage to that bridge. Perhaps because Congress, at the time, had not yet extended admiralty jurisdiction to injuries caused by a vessel to landbased objects, Richardson suggested that the Limitation Act might confer an independent basis for federal jurisdiction over maritime torts involving damage that resulted on land. Id. at 106, 32 S.Ct. 27. However, in light of the Extension of Jurisdiction Admiralty Act of 1948 and subsequent Supreme Court precedent, no circuit court has found that Richardson is controlling law on the issue of whether the Limitation Act provides an independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. Moreover, several circuit courts have specifically addressed and persuasively distinguished Richardson on multiple grounds.
Thus, consistent with the uniform conclusion of every sister circuit to address the issue, the court finds that the Limitation Act does not independently confer federal subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Thus, the court only has subject matter jurisdiction if this case otherwise satisfies the traditional requirements for admiralty jurisdiction.
Here, for purposes of the Motion to Dismiss, the parties do not dispute that the alleged tort occurred on navigable waters or that the Sea Doo constitutes a "vessel" for purposes of admiralty jurisdiction. See 1 U.S.C. § 3 (2012) (defining "vessel"); In re Young, 872 F.2d 176 (6th Cir.1989) (extending definition of "vessel" to pleasure boats). However, the parties dispute whether there is a sufficient connection between the alleged incident and maritime commerce.
With respect to the connection test:
Grubart, 513 U.S. at 534, 115 S.Ct. 1043 (internal quotations and citations omitted). The first part of this test turns on "a description of the incident at an intermediate level of possible generality." Id. at 538, 115 S.Ct. 1043. In the second part of this test, the court must inquire into whether the tortfeasor's activity "on navigable waters is so closely related to activities traditionally subject to admiralty law that the reasons for applying special admiralty rules would apply in the suit at hand." Id. at 539-40, 115 S.Ct. 1043.
Over the past several decades, the Supreme Court has issued a series of decisions outlining the contours of the connection test. Traditionally, federal courts had applied only a "locality rule," under which a court exercised admiralty jurisdiction if the incident in question occurred on navigable waters, without any consideration of contextual circumstances. However, in Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249, 260, 93 S.Ct. 493, 34 L.Ed.2d 454 (1972), the Court disavowed the "mechanical application of the locality test" as "not consonant with the purposes of maritime law." The Court found that, where an airplane had crashed into a navigable body of water after a flock of birds flew into the plane's engines, admiralty jurisdiction was not appropriate. In reaching that decision, the Court identified in a footnote several cases that inappropriately had "mechanically applied" the locality rule, "despite [the] lack of any connection between the wrong and traditional forms of maritime commerce and navigation." Id. at 255-56, 256 n. 5, 93 S.Ct. 493. Among those cases was King v. Testerman, 214 F.Supp. 335 (E.D.Tenn.1963), in which a water skier alleged that the operator of the pleasure boat towing him — which he had procured from his brother-in-law — had acted negligently in failing to signal to him that the boat was turning, causing him to fall and suffer an eye injury. See Executive Jet, 409 U.S. at 256 n. 5, 93 S.Ct. 493 (citing Testerman, 214 F.Supp. at 336).
In Foremost Ins. Co. v. Richardson, 457 U.S. 668, 102 S.Ct. 2654, 73 L.Ed.2d 300 (1982), the Court confirmed that admiralty jurisdiction could govern incidents involving pleasure boats under appropriate circumstances. There, two pleasure boats had collided in a navigable river estuary. Id. at 669-70, 102 S.Ct. 2654. The Court found that admiralty jurisdiction existed, because of "[t]he potential disruptive impact [upon maritime commerce] of a collision between boats on navigable waters, when coupled with the traditional concern that admiralty law holds for navigation." Id. at 675, 102 S.Ct. 2654; see also Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199, 205, 116 S.Ct. 619, 133 L.Ed.2d 578 (1996) (watercraft collision on navigable waters "falls within admiralty's domain").
In Sisson v. Ruby, the Court found that admiralty jurisdiction existed, where a defective washer/dryer on a pleasure boat docked at a marina had caused a fire that burned that boat, other boats docked at the marina, and ultimately the marina itself. 497 U.S. at 367, 110 S.Ct. 2892. The Court found that the burning of docked boats on a marina was a type of incident "likely to disrupt [maritime] commercial activity," and that the storage and maintenance of a vessel on navigable waters had a "substantial relationship with maritime activity." Id. at 365-67, 110 S.Ct. 2892.
In Grubart, the Court further clarified the scope of the connection test. There, a
Notably, the Court rejected the defendant's argument that the Court was interpreting the connection test too broadly:
513 U.S. at 542-43, 115 S.Ct. 1043 (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted). Thus, although Grubart adopted a broad interpretation of the connection test, it (1) expressly relied on and reaffirmed the continuing validity of Executive Jet; and (2) implicitly acknowledged that, although cases involving a vessel on navigable waters "ordinarily" would implicate admiralty jurisdiction, exceptional cases involving a vessel on navigable waters could fall outside the scope of admiralty jurisdiction, depending on their facts. Accordingly, the Court's indication in Executive Jet that certain cases involving pleasure craft on navigable waters — such as the water skier's lawsuit against the tow boat operator in King v. Testerman — did not demonstrate "any connection between the wrong and traditional of maritime commerce and navigation," Executive Jet, 409 U.S. at 255-56, 93 S.Ct. 493, remains good law.
The incident at issue here does not meet either of the two prongs of the connection
Furthermore, even if the first prong of the connection test were met, the "general character" of the activity giving rise to Segars' accidental injury does not show a "substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity." The incident involved young adults utilizing a privately owned pleasure craft at the shoreline to pull a land-based inner tube onto the shoreline, landing at a depth so shallow that they could stand in it. Unlike other cases in which admiralty jurisdiction over pleasure craft accidents has been found, the incident here does not involve a collision between the pleasure craft and some other person or object — i.e., negligent operation of the pleasure craft causing a collision — injuries to a passenger on the craft due to allegedly negligent navigation of the craft, or a product defect in the craft that could endanger passengers on navigable waters.
Hickam has identified several post-Grubart cases in which courts outside of the Sixth Circuit have exercised admiralty jurisdiction over cases involving jet skis, water skis, and/or recreational boating.
Although a case involving navigation of a vessel on navigable waters "ordinarily" falls within admiralty jurisdiction, the circumstances presented here are exceptional, and Hickam has not met his burden to establish that the incident satisfies either prong of the Grubart test. Indeed, Hickam has not presented any evidence showing that the incident at issue here realistically bears a "substantial relationship" to maritime commerce. Accordingly, the court finds that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case.
With respect to the Motion to Amend, the amended allegations have no bearing on the court's jurisdictional analysis. Because the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case, the court will deny the Motion to Amend as moot. Furthermore, because the court has determined that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute, the court will dissolve the injunction restraining the state court proceedings.
For the reasons stated herein, the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction will be granted, the Motion to Dissolve Injunction will be granted, the Motion to Amend will be denied as moot, and Hickam's claims will be dismissed.
An appropriate order will enter.
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, the court finds as follows:
Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438, 448, 121 S.Ct. 993, 148 L.Ed.2d 931 (2001)
