Garanti Finansal Kiralama A.S. v. Aqua Marine and Trading Inc.
697 F.3d 59
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- GFK appeals district court's dismissal of its DJA complaint seeking declaration it was not bound to arbitrate AM's bunker contracts.
- AM asserted admiralty jurisdiction over the dispute despite GFK's claim that no maritime contracts existed.
- CMR Denizcilik Veticaret A.S. signed order confirmations on GFK's ships, claiming to act as GFK's manager.
- GFK contends CMR was not its agent and that GFK had bare title with charterers controlling the vessels.
- District court granted summary judgment sua sponte in AM's favor based on agency conclusions; court treated GFK's Rule 60(b) request as a motion.
- This appeal vacates and remands for factual development on agency, preserving DJA procedures and admiralty jurisdiction analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DJA action lies under admiralty jurisdiction here | GFK argues no maritime contract exists; no maritime tort claim. | AM contends admiralty jurisdiction covers maritime contracts; CMR acted as GFK's agent. | Jurisdiction exists; realignment analysis supports DJA in admiralty context. |
| Whether agency facts preclude summary judgment | No agency binding; CMR not authorized to bind GFK. | CMR acted as GFK's agent; agency facts support binding. | Material facts about agency remain; summary judgment improper. |
| Whether CMR's authority was actual or apparent | Evidence does not prove CMR's actual or apparent authority. | Evidence suggests CMR was manager/agent of GFK for contracts. | Genuine issues of material fact on authority preclude ruling as a matter of law. |
| Whether Skelly Oil/realignment doctrine applies to admiralty DJA | Skelly Oil realignment limits jurisdiction to mirror coercive suit. | DJ A and admiralty context can use Skelly Oil realignment. | Skelly Oil realignment extends to admiralty DJA; jurisdiction exists here but merits depend on agency facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667 (1950) (realigns declaratory judgments to mirror coercive actions; limits DJA when federal claim would arise only as defense)
- Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California, 463 U.S. 1 (1983) (duty to realign for federal questions; ERISA preemption example; DJA jurisdictional limits)
- Wycoff Co. v. Public Service Commission of Utah, 344 U.S. 237 (1952) (jurisdictional analysis via threatened action; DJA structure)
- Beacon Constr. Co. v. Matco Electric Co., 521 F.2d 392 (2d Cir. 1975) (DJ A goals of speed, economy, and resolving disputes)
- Fleet Bank, N.A. v. Burke, 160 F.3d 883 (2d Cir. 1998) (amount in controversy in DJA actions measured by potential coercive action)
- DeLovio v. Boit, 7 F. Cas. 418 (C.C.D. Mass. 1815) (preambulary) (early maritime contract jurisdiction considerations)
- Exxon Corp. v. Central Gulf Lines, Inc., 500 U.S. 603 (1991) (admiralty jurisdiction over contracts; federal maritime law governs)
- Interocean Shipping Co. v. National Shipping & Trading Corp., 523 F.2d 527 (2d Cir. 1975) (agency authority concepts under maritime law)
- Kirno Hill Corp. v. Holt, 618 F.2d 982 (2d Cir. 1980) (agency principles in maritime context)