D'Amico Dry Ltd. v. Primera Maritime (Hellas) Ltd.
756 F.3d 151
2d Cir.2014Background
- D’Amico (ocean carrier) entered a forward freight agreement (FFA) with Primera to hedge freight-rate risk; Primera was to pay if market rates on specified future dates were below the contract rate.
- Market rates fell; D’Amico invoiced Primera and Primera refused to pay; D’Amico sued in the English High Court (Commercial Court) and obtained judgment in its favor.
- D’Amico sued in U.S. district court to enforce the English judgment, asserting federal admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333; Primera moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The district court dismissed, reasoning the English judgment was not rendered by an admiralty court and the underlying FFA claim was not maritime under English law.
- D’Amico argued federal admiralty jurisdiction applies if the underlying claim would be maritime under U.S. law; the district court rejected that argument and denied reconsideration.
- The Second Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that § 1333 permits enforcement of foreign judgments where the underlying claim would be maritime under U.S. law and directing the district court to decide that maritime-character question on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal admiralty jurisdiction under § 1333 can support a suit to enforce a foreign judgment when the foreign court was not an admiralty tribunal | D’Amico: § 1333 covers enforcement of foreign judgments that adjudicated maritime claims, even if the foreign court was not an admiralty court | Primera: Enforcement suit must satisfy federal jurisdiction independently; because the English judgment was non-admiralty under English law, federal admiralty jurisdiction is lacking | Court: § 1333 extends to enforcement of foreign judgments that resolved maritime claims, regardless of whether rendered by a specialized admiralty court (reaffirming Victrix dictum) |
| Whether the maritime character of the underlying claim should be determined by foreign law or U.S. law | D’Amico: U.S. admiralty standards should govern whether the claim is maritime for § 1333 purposes | Primera/District Ct.: Characterization must follow the law of the nation that rendered the judgment (English law here) | Court: Use U.S. admiralty law to determine whether the underlying claim is maritime for purposes of § 1333; remanded for that inquiry |
| Whether settlement/enforcement-of-agreement precedents (which deny admiralty jurisdiction over settlement claims) control here | D’Amico: A judicial judgment validating an underlying maritime claim differs from a private settlement and may be enforced in admiralty | Primera: Analogous settlement cases show enforcement actions are not maritime | Court: Distinguishes settlements (which may not validate the underlying claim) from a judicial judgment that adjudicates and validates a maritime claim; Penhallow policy supports admiralty jurisdiction for enforcement |
| Whether practical and doctrinal considerations support applying U.S. law for the maritime inquiry | D’Amico: Forum’s procedural/jurisdictional law should control; comity and predictability favor U.S. law | Primera: (implicit) deference to foreign classification promotes comity | Court: Agrees with D’Amico — constitutional, choice-of-law, comity, and practical reasons favor using U.S. admiralty standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Penhallow v. Doane’s Adm’rs, 3 U.S. 54 (1795) (recognizing enforcement of foreign admiralty decrees in U.S. admiralty courts)
- Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895) (discussing international comity and enforcement of foreign judgments, including admiralty decrees)
- Victrix S.S. Co. v. Salen Dry Cargo A.B., 825 F.2d 709 (2d Cir. 1987) (dictum that admiralty jurisdiction extends to enforcement of foreign judgments based on maritime claims)
- Int’l Sea Food Ltd. v. M/V Campeche, 566 F.2d 482 (5th Cir. 1978) (recognizing principle that U.S. admiralty courts may enforce maritime decrees of foreign admiralty courts)
- Vitol, S.A. v. Primerose Shipping Co., 708 F.3d 527 (4th Cir. 2013) (construing Victrix dictum to focus on whether the underlying claim is maritime, though it did not resolve whether U.S. or foreign law controls)
- Blue Whale Corp. v. Grand China Shipping Dev. Co., 722 F.3d 488 (2d Cir. 2013) (discussing that federal law controls procedural jurisdictional inquiries about admiralty claims)