Amr Fawzy v. Wauquiez Boats SNC
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 19927
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- In June 2011 Fawzy bought a 55-foot yacht from Wauquiez Boats in France and later alleged numerous defects that manifested while voyaging to Massachusetts.
- Fawzy filed suit in U.S. district court (Oct. 6, 2016) invoking admiralty jurisdiction and promptly obtained a Rule B maritime attachment on a Wauquiez vessel at a U.S. boat show.
- Wauquiez moved to dismiss for lack of admiralty/maritime jurisdiction and sought sanctions for the attachment.
- On Oct. 14 the district court issued an order dismissing the original complaint for lack of admiralty jurisdiction, vacating the attachment, denying sanctions, and closing the case.
- Unbeknownst to the court, Fawzy had filed an amended complaint as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1) about an hour before the dismissal; the amended complaint superseded the original but was never addressed by the district court or by Wauquiez.
- The parties appealed; the Fourth Circuit concluded the district court’s dismissal was not final because the operative amended complaint remained unaddressed, and dismissed the appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court’s dismissal of the original complaint was a final, appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 | Fawzy argued the dismissal was reviewable as an error and that Rule 60(a) didn’t apply to preserve the error | Wauquiez argued the amended complaint added no new claims/facts and Fawzy’s failure to notify the court made the original complaint operative, so the dismissal was final | The court held the amended complaint was filed as of right and superseded the original, so the dismissal of the original left the operative complaint unaddressed and was not a final order — no appellate jurisdiction |
| Effect of a Rule 15(a) amended complaint filed before a district court’s dismissal | Fawzy contended the district court’s subsequent dismissal could be reviewed despite the amendment | Wauquiez contended the amendment did not change jurisdiction because no new causes of action/facts were added and Fawzy failed to timely alert the court | The court held a properly filed amended complaint supersedes the original and becomes operative; its existence rendered the district court’s dismissal of the original interlocutory |
| Whether the district court’s denial of sanctions was appealable as part of the dismissal | Fawzy did not contest; Wauquiez cross-appealed denial of sanctions | Wauquiez argued denial of sanctions was reviewable because the dismissal was final | The court dismissed the cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the underlying dismissal was not final |
| Whether exceptions to final-order jurisdiction applied (e.g., collateral order) | Not invoked by parties | Wauquiez referenced oral argument coverage of some facts | The court found no applicable exception and declined to treat the order as final or collateral |
Key Cases Cited
- Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229 (finality requires ending litigation on the merits)
- Flota Maritima Browning de Cuba v. Snobl, 363 F.2d 733 (4th Cir.) (contract for sale of a ship is not a maritime contract)
- East River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858 (products-liability claims for purely economic loss are not cognizable in admiralty)
- Young v. City of Mt. Ranier, 238 F.3d 567 (4th Cir. 2001) (an amended complaint supersedes and renders the original complaint of no effect)