John Minott v. M/Y Brunello
891 F.3d 1277
| 11th Cir. | 2018Background
- John Minott, a worker hired to perform maintenance on the yacht Brunello while it was docked in navigable waters, fell and suffered serious injuries when the vessel’s gangway detached after the crew allegedly put engines in gear.
- Minott filed a verified admiralty complaint asserting a maritime-tort claim in rem against the Brunello (and in personam claims against others) and moved the district court to direct issuance of a warrant in rem to arrest the vessel.
- The district court denied the warrant, reasoning (1) uncertainty whether the claim fell within admiralty jurisdiction and (2) that maritime liens arise only by statute (citing 46 U.S.C. § 31342) and thus a tort could not support in rem arrest.
- Minott moved for reconsideration, the district court denied it, and Minott appealed under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3) (interlocutory appeal from an order affecting admiralty process).
- The Eleventh Circuit held it had interlocutory jurisdiction, concluded Minott’s injury was within admiralty jurisdiction, and ruled a maritime tort creates a maritime lien by operation of general maritime law, requiring the clerk to issue a warrant in rem for the vessel’s arrest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has interlocutory jurisdiction to review denial of a warrant in rem | Minott: order refusing arrest affects vessel liability and risks permanent loss of in rem remedy; appealable under §1292(a)(3) | Vessel/others: appeal premature because not a final decree | Held: Court has interlocutory jurisdiction under §1292(a)(3); refusal to arrest effectively decides the vessel claim and prejudices rights |
| Whether the incident falls within admiralty jurisdiction | Minott: injury occurred on navigable water/gangway and arose during vessel maintenance — substantial relation to maritime activity | District court: injury had minimal impact on maritime commerce and plaintiff’s conduct (walking to boat) not maritime | Held: Admiralty jurisdiction exists — incident on navigable waters (gangway part of vessel) and nexus to maritime activity (repair/operation of vessel) |
| Whether a maritime tort creates a maritime lien enforceable in rem | Minott: maritime torts give rise to an automatic lien under general maritime law, permitting arrest in rem | District court: maritime liens only arising from statutes (e.g., 46 U.S.C. §31342 for necessaries); tort cannot ground in rem seizure | Held: A maritime tort creates a maritime lien by operation of general maritime law; court erred to treat §31342 as exclusive |
| Whether the clerk must be directed to issue a warrant in rem | Minott: supplemental rules require issuance if conditions for in rem action appear | District court: insufficient showing of lien and admiralty jurisdiction justified denying warrant | Held: Supplemental Rule C mandates issuing a warrant when conditions appear; district court must direct clerk to issue warrant in rem |
Key Cases Cited
- Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (tests for maritime tort jurisdiction)
- The Admiral Peoples, 295 U.S. 649 (gangplank/gangway treated as part of vessel for admiralty jurisdiction)
- The John G. Stevens, 170 U.S. 113 (maritime liens arise by operation of law when claim arises)
- Swift & Co. Packers v. Compania Colombiana del Caribe, S.A., 339 U.S. 684 (interlocutory review of orders vacating vessel attachment justified given risk of loss)
- Crimson Yachts v. Betty Lyn II Motor Yacht, 603 F.3d 864 (in rem jurisdiction follows attachment when maritime lien exists)
- Alderman v. Pac. N. Victor, Inc., 95 F.3d 1061 (two-part Grubart-derived test for admiralty jurisdiction)