Michael Williamson v. Recovery Limited Partnership, 731 F.3d 608

Background

The S.S. Central America (‘‘Ship of Gold’’) sank in 1857 with a large cargo of gold; Thomas Thompson’s Columbus–America Discovery Group located and recovered treasure in 1988.
Thompson recruited employees and vendors under employment agreements and separate non‑disclosure agreements (NDAs) that promised each a share of the ‘‘net recovery’’ in exchange for confidentiality.
Multiple rounds of litigation followed over title and salvage; the Fourth Circuit awarded Columbus–America a large salvage share but did not vest title in the salvor.
In 2005–06 Williamson and several co‑plaintiffs (former crew and a sonar lessor) sued Thompson, Recovery Limited, Columbus Exploration, and others in Ohio state court asserting breach of the NDAs, conversion, and related claims; defendants removed to federal court.
The district court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs on all three entity counterclaims, granted defendants judgment on several plaintiff claims, and later entered a prejudgment attachment and preliminary injunction restraining certain assets (coins, artifacts, trust funds); Thompson fled and remains a fugitive.
The Sixth Circuit consolidated interlocutory appeals and affirmed: it held it had jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal of the entity defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3), rejected application of the two‑year salvage limitations statute to the plaintiffs’ NDA claims, affirmed summary judgment against the entity counterclaims, and affirmed the preliminary injunction (but declined to review the purely state‑law attachment order).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether interlocutory appeal lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3) for summary judgment disposing non‑admiralty counterclaims joined in an admiralty case	Rule 9(h) makes the case an admiralty case; §1292(a)(3) allows interlocutory appeals of decrees determining rights and liabilities in admiralty cases	§1292(a)(3) should be read narrowly to permit appeals only as to admiralty claims, not any joined non‑admiralty claims	Court adopted the plain‑text reading: because Rule 9(h) was invoked and the order determined rights/liabilities in an admiralty case, interlocutory appeal under §1292(a)(3) was available.
Whether the prejudgment attachment of seven crates (Ohio law) is immediately appealable as a preliminary injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)	Plaintiffs framed relief as attachment under Ohio law; not an injunction	Defendants argued the attachment had the practical effect of an injunction and so was immediately appealable	The court lacked jurisdiction to review the state‑law attachment portion; even if it had injunctive effect, defendants failed to show ‘‘serious, perhaps irreparable’’ consequence warranting immediate appeal.
Whether plaintiffs’ breach‑of‑NDA claims are time barred by the two‑year salvage statute (46 U.S.C. § 80107(c))	Plaintiffs say claims arise from NDAs (contract), not salvage; they are not ‘‘salvage services’’ and thus not time‑barred	Defendants contend plaintiffs rendered salvage‑related services and §80107(c)’s two‑year limit applies	Court held §80107(c) applies to pure (volunteer) salvors; NDAs were contractual and confidentiality is not ‘‘salvage services’’—the statute did not bar plaintiffs’ claims.
Whether the district court abused discretion in granting preliminary injunction (and bond amount) restraining Thompson/Columbus Exploration assets	Plaintiffs argued likely success on the merits, risk of dissipation/fraudulent transfers, and need to preserve assets for any future judgment	Defendants argued lack of equitable authority (citing Grupo Mexicano), lack of district court jurisdiction while interlocutory appeal pending, error in balancing injunction factors, and insufficient bond	Court affirmed: defendants forfeited the Grupo Mexicano argument below; district court retained jurisdiction over the injunction; factual findings supporting likelihood of success and irreparable harm not clearly erroneous; injunction appropriate given alleged fraudulent transfers; bond issue tied to attachment (not reviewed).

Key Cases Cited

Columbus–America Discovery Group v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 974 F.2d 450 (4th Cir. 1992) (prior appellate opinion describing recovery efforts and ownership disputes)
Columbus–America Discovery Group v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 56 F.3d 556 (4th Cir. 1995) (appellate decision awarding substantial salvage compensation to Columbus–America)
The Clarita and The Clara, 90 U.S. 1 (1874) (classic articulation of salvage elements and distinction between volunteer salvors and contract salvors)
The Sabine, 101 U.S. 384 (1880) (recognizing salvors’ maritime lien and arrest remedy)
Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo v. Alliance Bond Fund, 527 U.S. 308 (1999) (limit on courts of equity to issue asset‑freezing injunctions for purely legal claims)
Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863 (1994) (instructions to read exceptions to final‑judgment rule narrowly)
Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009) (statutory‑text canon emphasizing plain meaning)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (standard for assessing evidence and drawing inferences at summary judgment)