District court erred in dismissing salvage company's in rem admiralty action seeking arrest of vessel that sank in Lake Michigan for failure to give specific details about shipwreck location without first assuring continuance of federal jurisdiction over
GREAT LAKES EXPLORATION GROUP, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIDENTIFIED WRECKED AND (FOR SALVAGE-RIGHT PURPOSES), ABANDONED SAILING VESSEL, etc., Defendant, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY, ARTS AND LIBRARIES, Intervenors-Appellees.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
08a0161p.06; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 8654; 2008 FED App. 0161P (6th Cir.)
April 22, 2008, Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff, a private underwater exploration and salvage company, sought review of an order from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids, which dismissed its in rem admiralty action seeking an arrest for defendant, an ancient vessel that sank in Lake Michigan, after intervenor, the State of Michigan, claimed title to the vessel pursuant to the Abandoned Shipwreck Act (ASA), 43 U.S.C.S. §§ 2101-2106.
OVERVIEW: After the State intervened, the district court ordered the company to disclose the vessel's precise location to allow the State to investigate whether the shipwreck was "embedded" within the meaning of ASA. The company refused, arguing that without additional protections to safeguard federal jurisdiction, such as an arrest of the shipwreck, the State would be free to claim Eleventh Amendment immunity and divest the district court of jurisdiction. The district court refused to arrest the vessel, and it dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with its order. The court held that the district court did not err in requiring specific details about the location of the shipwreck at the pleading stage pursuant to Supp. R. Certain Adm. & Mar. Cl. C(2)(b), C(3)(a)(i), and E(2)(a). However, it erred in its enforcement of the requirement before assuring the continuance of federal jurisdiction over the company's claim. The general information provided by the company was sufficient for purposes of allowing the district court to arrest the vessel in order to perfect federal jurisdiction and then require disclosure of the vessel's precise location.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the district court's dismissal of the company's claim, and it remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
