Giuseppe Bottiglieri Shipping Co. S.P.A. v. United States
843 F. Supp. 2d 1241
S.D. Ala.2012Background
- Petitioners Giuseppe Bottiglieri Shipping Co. S.P.A. and the M/V Bottiglieri Challenger (in rem) seek judicial resolution of stalled APPS negotiations with the Coast Guard.
- The Vessel arrived at Mobile, Alabama on Jan. 24, 2012 to unload steel plates; Coast Guard interviewed crew about possible APPS violations.
- Allegations include a so-called 'magic pipe' used to discharge machinery space waste, with eight crew facing potential APPS liability and ORB discrepancies.
- On Jan. 26, 2012, Coast Guard issued a letter threatening possible penalties and withholding departure clearance via CBP pending bond/surety terms.
- Parties bargained over a surety under 33 U.S.C. § 1908(e); the Coast Guard sought $700,000 bond and 180 days of crew welfare coverage.
- Eight crew members faced arrest or material witness warrants; one chief engineer was arrested; others were detained as witnesses and housed locally.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether APA provides jurisdiction. | Petitioners rely on APA final action review. | Coast Guard action is discretionary with no meaningful standard. | APA lacks jurisdiction; no finality/meaningful standard. |
| Whether APPS provides jurisdiction. | Petitioners seek review under APPS § 1910(a). | Petitioners did not invoke § 1910(a) and failed 60-day notice. | APPS review not available; lacks jurisdiction and private right. |
| Whether other grounds create jurisdiction. | Petitioners claim exclusive federal authority over statutory meaning. | No private right to reinterpret § 1908(e) outside APPS/APA. | No jurisdiction via other grounds. |
| Whether Supplemental Rule E applies. | Petitioners seek Admiralty Rule E footing. | Rule E does not apply to customs clearance issues; APPS controls. | Rule E does not confer jurisdiction here. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ionia Management S.A., 555 F.3d 303 (2d Cir. 2009) (ORB maintenance obligation; accuracy upon entering U.S. waters)
- United States v. Jho, 534 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2008) (maintainance of ORB; accuracy on port entry)
- Forsyth County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 633 F.3d 1032 (11th Cir. 2011) (exception to exhaustion; meaningful standards required for review)
- Fanin v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 572 F.3d 868 (11th Cir. 2009) (final agency action; finality requirements for APA review)
- Hinck v. United States, 550 U.S. 501 (2007) (specific statutory provisions preempt general remedies)
- Nguyen v. United States, 556 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2009) (interpretation of statutes; specific vs general remedies)
- Drake v. F.A.A., 291 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (unbridled agency discretion; lack of meaningful standard)
- Lee v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 592 F.3d 612 (4th Cir. 2010) (APA jurisdictional limits; limited private remedy)