Buccina v. Grimsby, 96 F. Supp. 3d 706

On June 10, 2012, Buccina was injured when the pleasure boat operated by Grimsby struck a wave on the Maumee River and she was thrown into her seat; she received Coast Guard and hospital care.
The Maumee River was crowded that day with pleasure craft and commercial traffic; conditions were choppy with waves up to two feet.
Buccina filed suit on November 3, 2014, alleging maritime torts arising from the boat operation.
Grimsby moved to dismiss, arguing (1) Buccina’s claim was time-barred by Ohio’s two-year statute of limitations, and (2) Buccina failed adequately to plead admiralty jurisdiction.
The court held substantive federal maritime law applies to maritime torts even when a plaintiff invokes diversity jurisdiction, and that the three-year maritime limitations period applies under federal law, so Buccina’s suit was timely.
The court also found Buccina’s complaint adequately pleaded the ‘‘connection’’ element of admiralty jurisdiction because the incident had the potential to disrupt maritime commerce (crowded navigable water, need to stop/shore the vessel), and thus denied the motion to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicable statute of limitations	Buccina argued maritime law governs, so the 3-year maritime limitations period applies	Grimsby argued Buccina invoked diversity and Ohio law (2-year) should apply, barring the claim	Court held federal maritime substantive law governs maritime claims regardless of invoking diversity; 3-year maritime period applies, claim timely
Adequacy of pleading admiralty jurisdiction (Grubart connection element)	Buccina contended the complaint shows location (navigable Maumee) and connection (crowded water, potential to impede commerce)	Grimsby argued the complaint fails to show the incident could disrupt maritime commerce or substantially relate to maritime activity	Court held complaint sufficiently alleged both location and connection — incident could pose more than a fanciful risk to commercial shipping — pleading adequate

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: plausible claim required)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard: labels and conclusions insufficient)
Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Ellerman Lines, Ltd., 369 U.S. 355 (substantive maritime law governs maritime claims regardless of procedural label)
Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn, 346 U.S. 406 (substantive maritime rights unaffected by law/admiralty docket label)
Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (two-part Grubart test for admiralty: location and connection to maritime activity)
Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358 (assessing potential to disrupt maritime commerce beyond actual effects)
Oroz v. American President Lines, Ltd., 259 F.2d 636 (maritime limitations uniformly applied)
Carey v. Bahama Cruise Lines, 864 F.2d 201 (Rule 9(h) is procedural; parties cannot select substantive law by pleading label)