Vasquez v. YII Shipping Co.
692 F.3d 1192
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Vasquez, a seaman, sues YII Shipping for Jones Act and related claims after a gas-powered tool exploded injuring him aboard a YII vessel.
- Florida forum non conveniens dismissed Vasquez’s claims; Florida ruling not addressing federal maritime choice-of-law issues.
- Vasquez then filed in federal court; district court applied collateral estoppel/res judicata and dismissed under forum non conveniens and Rooker-Feldman.
- Florida court’s order did not resolve federal choice-of-law issues under Rhoditis; Florida analysis focused only on injuries in Bahamas waters.
- The district court dismissed, applying Rooker-Feldman, collateral estoppel, and res judicata; Vasquez appeals seeking federal choice-of-law review.
- Remand instructed to evaluate YII’s U.S. base of operations under Rhoditis in light of full U.S. business activity
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Rooker-Feldman to this dispute | Vasquez argues Rooker-Feldman does not bar review of federal choice-of-law. | YII contends Rooker-Feldman forecloses district court review of state-court judgments. | Rooker-Feldman narrow; does not bar federal review of federal choice-of-law issue. |
| Collateral estoppel/issue preclusion vs. federal choice-of-law | Vasquez contends Florida ruling cannot preclude federal choice-of-law determinations. | YII asserts issue preclusion applies to identical issues already litigated in Florida. | Collateral estoppel not applicable because issues not identical and not fully litigated. |
| Res judicata applicability to Florida forum non conveniens dismissal | Vasquez argues Florida dismissal merits preclusion; res judicata should apply. | YII argues Florida dismissal may have preclusive effect. | Res judicata inapplicable; forum non conveniens dismissal is not a merits judgment. |
| Remand scope—Rhoditis base of operations determination | Federal analysis should consider all U.S. operations to determine base of operations. | Florida analysis limited to Florida-specific forum non conveniens factors. | Remand required to determine base of operations under Rhoditis using full U.S. business activity |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (defines narrow scope of Rooker-Feldman)
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (early articulation of Rooker-Feldman limits)
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (precludes federal review of state-court judgments when reviewing state decisions)
- Szumlicz v. Norwegian Am. Line, Inc., 698 F.2d 1192 (11th Cir. 1983) (illustrates federal choice-of-law vs. forum non conveniens distinctions)
- Hellenic Lines Ltd. v. Rhoditis, 398 U.S. 306 (1970) (base of operations test for federal choice-of-law in maritime context)
- Kinney Sys. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 674 So.2d 86 (Fla. 1996) (forum non conveniens analysis under Florida law distinct from Rhoditis)
- Prestige Rent-A-Car v. Advantage Car Rental & Sales, 656 So.2d 541 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995) (preclusion with respect to prior dismissal based on jurisdiction)
- Tananta v. Cruise Ships Catering & Servs. Int'l, V.N., 909 So.2d 874 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004) (contrast between Florida and federal choice-of-law approaches)
- Calvo v. Sol Melia, S.A., 761 So.2d 461 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000) (relevance of Florida corporate presence to forum non conveniens)