Taghadomi v. United States
2005 WL 647740, 401 F.3d 1080 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Tort claims against the United States that fall within federal admiralty jurisdiction are exclusively governed by the Suits in Admiralty Act (SAA) or the Public Vessels Act (PVA). Such claims cannot be brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), even if the admiralty remedy is unavailable due to a procedural bar like a statute of limitations or a reciprocity requirement.
Facts:
- Manouchehr Monazzami Taghadomi and his wife Nahid Davoo-dabadi rented a kayak while honeymooning in Maui.
- Their kayak was buffeted by harsh wind and waves, putting them in distress at sea.
- A witness on land observed the struggling kayak and telephoned the U.S. Coast Guard's Maui office with its location.
- The Coast Guard dispatched a cutter, the Kiska, which conducted a brief search for the couple.
- The Kiska's search was called off when darkness fell.
- The Coast Guard offices in Maui and Honolulu did not contact local authorities, such as the Maui Fire Department, which had access to helicopters and other rescue vessels.
- Nahid Davoo-dabadi was thrown from the kayak, attacked by a shark, and died.
- Manouchehr Monazzami Taghadomi washed ashore on an island where he was stranded for three days before being rescued.
Procedural Posture:
- Manouchehr Monazzami Taghadomi, the estate of Nahid Davoo-dabadi, and Nahid's parents sued the United States in federal district court.
- The United States filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.
- The plaintiffs opposed the motion and moved to amend their complaint.
- The district court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with the United States as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do tort claims against the United States for injuries occurring on navigable waters, which fall under federal admiralty jurisdiction, provide a 'remedy' under the Suits in Admiralty Act or Public Vessels Act, thereby precluding a suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, even when the admiralty remedy is barred by a statute of limitations or a reciprocity requirement?
Opinions:
Majority - O’Scannlain, Circuit Judge.
Yes. If a tort claim against the United States falls within admiralty jurisdiction, it is exclusively governed by either the Suits in Admiralty Act (SAA) or the Public Vessels Act (PVA), and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) is not an available avenue for relief. The court first determined that the plaintiffs' claims fell within federal admiralty jurisdiction by applying the two-part locality and nexus test. The locality test was met because the injury occurred on navigable waters, which is the determinative factor, regardless of where the negligent act (e.g., the land-based failure to communicate) originated. The nexus test was met because the incident, a failed sea rescue, has a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce, and the activity giving rise to it—a Coast Guard search-and-rescue operation—has a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity. Because the claims are maritime in nature, they must be brought under the SAA or PVA. The claim related to the cutter Kiska's search involves a 'public vessel' and is governed by the PVA; its reciprocity requirement bars the Iranian plaintiffs, and this bar cannot be circumvented by suing under the FTCA. The failure-to-communicate claim, while not involving a public vessel, is still a maritime tort for which the SAA provides a remedy. Therefore, the FTCA's explicit exception for claims where a remedy is provided by the SAA bars this claim, even though the plaintiffs missed the SAA's statute of limitations.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict and exclusive nature of admiralty jurisdiction for torts committed by the U.S. government at sea. It clarifies that the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) cannot be used as an alternative path to relief if a claim is cognizable in admiralty, even when the specific procedural requirements of the Suits in Admiralty Act (SAA) or Public Vessels Act (PVA) render the claim unsuccessful. The ruling prevents plaintiffs from 'forum shopping' between statutory schemes and underscores that procedural bars, such as a statute of limitations or a foreign reciprocity rule, do not negate the fact that a 'remedy is provided' by the admiralty statutes, thus triggering the FTCA's preclusionary exception. This precedent solidifies the jurisdictional boundaries, forcing litigants with maritime claims against the U.S. to comply strictly with the SAA and PVA or forfeit their right to sue.
