Maher Terminals, LLC v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
805 F.3d 98
| 3rd Cir. | 2015Background
- Maher Terminals, LLC operates a landside marine terminal and signed a 30-year lease with the Port Authority to rent a large Port Elizabeth terminal.
- Lease rents include Basic Rental (fixed per acre) and a Container Throughput Rental (variable by cargo volume and other conditions).
- Throughput Rental exemptions apply to initial cargo volumes; minimum annual cargo loading requirements and a guaranteed Throughput Rental apply regardless of actual throughput.
- Maher alleged the lease fees violate the Tonnage Clause, RHA, and WRDA, and also asserted a negligence claim related to fee establishment and collection.
- District Court dismissed Maher's federal claims for lack of vessel-related standing/jurisdiction; Maher appealed.
- Court affirms, holding landside service providers are outside the Tonnage Clause zone of interests and rejecting RHA/WRDA claims and admiralty jurisdiction for the negligence claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether landside fees can support Tonnage Clause claims | Maher argues Throughput Rental taxes violate Tonnage Clause as indirect tonnage duties. | Port Authority contends Maher and similar landside entities are outside the Clause’s zone of interests. | Maher outside Tonnage Clause zone of interests; claim dismissed. |
| Whether RHA claims apply to Maher as a landside entity | RHA prohibits non-Federal vessel taxes; Maher asserts fee collection offends RHA. | RHA applies only to taxes on vessels, not landside operators like Maher. | RHA claim failure; inapplicable to Maher. |
| Whether WRDA claims are cognizable for Maher | WRDA consent provisions could authorize port/harbor fees; Maher seeks judicial review of fees. | WRDA applies to vessel/cargo fees and requires an actual WRDA schedule and hearing; Maher has none. | WRDA claim fails; no WRDA schedule or proper basis for review. |
| Whether Maher’s negligence claim falls within federal admiralty jurisdiction | Negligence in fee establishment occurs in maritime context and could arise under admiralty law. | Negligence occurred on land; no maritime location or connection to navigation; state law applies. | No admiralty jurisdiction; state-law negligence claim dismissed; district court affirmed on supplemental jurisdiction grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Polar Tankers, Inc. v. City of Valdez, 557 U.S. 1 (2009) (tonnage clause prohibits indirect taxes on shipping; broad protection of vessels)
- Clyde Mallory Lines v. Alabama ex rel. State Docks Comm’n, 296 U.S. 261 (1935) (prohibits taxes for the privilege of entering or lying in port)
- Keokuk & Wabash Valley R. Co. v. Puget Sound Pac., Port, Stevedoring, 95 U.S. 80 (1877) (services fees allowed; taxes must be for services rendered)
- Passenger Cases, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 283 (1849) (tax on passengers and vessels; indirect taxation concerns)
- Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Steamboat Co. v. Bridgeport Port Authority, 567 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2009) (passenger fee violated Tonnage Clause when ultimately borne by passengers)
- Dept. of Revenue of State of Wash. v. Ass’n of Wash. Stevedoring Cos., 435 U.S. 734 (1978) (reexamined Puget Sound; relevance to tonnage and services nexus)
- Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (2014) (zone-of-interests analysis separated from standing; interpretive clarity)
- State, Dept. of Natural Resources v. Alaska Riverways, Inc., 232 P.3d 1203 (Alaska 2010) (RHA-like analysis context cited for comparative purposes)