Girmay v. M/Y EALU
0:25-cv-60661
| S.D. Fla. | Jul 7, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Damera Elsabet Girmay alleges she was sexually assaulted while working as a seafarer (second stewardess) aboard the M/Y EALU, a 132-foot Northcoast motor yacht, in the navigable waters of Antigua, West Indies.
- Plaintiff brings both in rem claims against the vessel (for unseaworthiness and maintenance/cure) and in personam claims against the owner/employer EALU MI, LLC (for Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, and failure to provide maintenance/cure).
- Plaintiff moved for, and was granted, a warrant to arrest the vessel under a $10,000 bond; the vessel was subsequently seized.
- Defendant moved to vacate the vessel arrest, arguing that the Southern District of Florida lacked subject matter jurisdiction, focusing on whether admiralty jurisdiction was proper under these circumstances.
- The United States Magistrate Judge recommended denial of the motion to vacate arrest; Defendant raised objections.
- The District Court reviewed all briefings and the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation de novo before issuing its ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the court have admiralty jurisdiction to seize the vessel for an alleged sexual assault in foreign navigable waters? | Yes: Sexual assault on navigable waters invokes maritime tort jurisdiction regardless of citizenship or flag. | No: Jurisdiction lacking due to foreign flag, crew, and location; Jones Act jurisdiction not met. | Court holds admiralty (maritime tort) jurisdiction met under the location and connection test; arrest valid. |
| Does the Jones Act confer in rem jurisdiction to seize a vessel? | No: Plaintiff does not rely on Jones Act for in rem action, but on general maritime law/tort. | Yes: Defendant focused on Jones Act, arguing it governs and precludes in rem jurisdiction. | Court finds in rem jurisdiction arises from maritime lien under general admiralty tort, not the Jones Act. |
| Is the location prong of the maritime jurisdiction test satisfied by an assault in foreign navigable waters? | Yes: Location prong satisfied by tort occurring aboard a vessel on navigable water (Antigua/S. Caribbean). | No: Defendant argued U.S. jurisdiction should not extend to foreign waters with foreign crew/vessel. | Court holds tort on navigable waters, regardless of nationality/location, satisfies location prong. |
| Is the connection prong satisfied for admiralty jurisdiction over a crew-on-crew sexual assault? | Yes: Sexual assault disrupts maritime commerce, related to core maritime activity. | No: Defendant did not provide material argument disputing connection element. | Court holds connection prong satisfied for crew assaults on vessel at sea. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (1995) (sets forth the location and connection test for admiralty tort jurisdiction)
- The John G. Stevens, 170 U.S. 113 (1898) (maritime lien attaches as soon as maritime tort claim arises)
- Zouras v. Menelaus Shipping Co., 336 F.2d 209 (1st Cir. 1964) (Jones Act creates only in personam actions, not maritime liens)
- Doe v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 394 F.3d 891 (11th Cir. 2004) (sexual assault on vessel satisfies admiralty jurisdiction)
- Minott v. M/Y BRUNELLO, 891 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2018) (enforcement of maritime liens falls under admiralty jurisdiction and allows vessel arrest)