Opinion
Civil Action Number 99-3454
June 22, 2000
ORDER REASONS
Before the Court is the motion of defendant Sea-Land Service, Inc. to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the following reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
This cargo case involves a shipment of 7,560 cartons of powdered milk carried aboard the M/V SEALAND ATLANTIC from Carlisle, United Kingdom, to San Salvador, El Salvador in April and May of 1998 under a bill of lading issued by defendant Sea-Land Service, Inc. ("Sea-Land"). Plaintiffs allege that the milk was delivered to Sea-Land in good order and condition at the loading port and that 1,512 cartons of the shipment never arrived in San Salvador, the port of discharge. Plaintiffs assert that their damages total $55,000.00 and that the defendants are liable for the loss. Sea-Land answers that the milk was hijacked and stolen by three armed men while it was being transported by truck from Honduras to San Salvador. Sea-Land generally denies liability for plaintiffs' loss.
Sea-Land now move to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant argues that the Court's admiralty jurisdiction does not attach in this case, since the cause of the loss occurred solely on land and bears no relationship to traditional maritime activity. Plaintiffs respond that admiralty jurisdiction exists here because the land leg of the carriage was merely incidental to the maritime portion of the contract under which the cargo was shipped. Further, plaintiffs argue that the loss allegedly occurred during a deviation over land that was chosen by defendant Sea-Land.
II. ANALYSIS
A district court has admiralty jurisdiction over a dispute involving a maritime contract: See Rex Oil, Ltd. v. M/V JACINTH, 873 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1989). Generally, the contract must be wholly maritime in nature to support admiralty jurisdiction. See Lucky-Goldstar, Int'l (America) Inc. v. Phibro Energy Int'l, Ltd., 958 F.2d 58, 59 (5th Cir. 1992). Thus, contracts containing both water and land transportation are intermodal or "mixed" contracts, which are typically not within the admiralty jurisdiction. See Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Authority v. Luallipam, Inc., 631 F. Supp. 1472, 1473-74 n. 2 (D. P.R. 1986). Nevertheless, a contract consisting of maritime and nonmaritime elements will be considered wholly maritime in nature when the nonmaritime portions of the contract's performance are incidental to the maritime portions. See Rex Oil, 873 F.2d at 86 (citing Luallipam, Inc., 631 F. Supp. at 1474); see also Lucky-Goldstar, 958 F.2d at 59 (recognizing that incidental nonmaritime aspects of a contract will not defeat admiralty jurisdiction). The question becomes, then, whether the carriage of plaintiffs' cargo over land was incidental to the maritime aspects of the contract of carriage.
In this case, the bill of lading issued by defendant Sea-Land Service, Inc. indicates that the loading port was Felixstowe, England, the intended port of discharge was San Salvador, El Salvador, and the carrying vessel was the M/V SEALAND ATLANTIC. See Def.'s Ex. 2. The parties clearly contemplated that the cargo would be carried by Sea-Land from one continent to another aboard the defendant's vessel. Further, the cargo was carried aboard the vessel over 5,000 miles and only carried on land for approximately 175 miles. The Court finds that the land-based portion of the voyage in this case was merely incidental to the cargo's shipment from England to Central America. See Project Hope v. M/V IBN SINA, No. 97-3853, 2000 WL 297182, at *12 n. 6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2000) (land-based transport to ocean terminal was relatively short and, thus, incidental to transport from Virginia to Egypt); Joe Boxer v. Fritz Transport Int'l, 33 F. Supp.2d 851, 856 (C.D. Ca. 1998) (finding that 62-mile land-based transport was merely incidental to the transoceanic voyage). Because the maritime aspects of the contract predominate in this dispute, the Court's admiralty jurisdiction exists.
Even if the land-based portion of the contract were not merely incidental to the maritime portion, the Court notes that the bill of lading specifies a discharge at San Salvador. It is undisputed that the cargo never arrived in San Salvador. Further, the parties may not have ever contemplated land transport from Puerto Cortez, meaning that the contract at issue would not be an intermodal or "mixed" contract. Defendant's decision to deviate to Honduras, instead of delivering the cargo on El Salvador's Pacific coast, should not deprive this Court of jurisdiction.
II. CONCLUSION
Because the Court finds that admiralty jurisdiction exists in the instant case, dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is unwarranted. For the foregoing reasons, the motion of defendant Sea-Land Service, Inc. to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED.