When a Barge is Not a Vessel

Hosea Project Movers, LLC v. Waterfront Assocs., No. 1:15-cv-799, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162576, (S.D. Ohio Sep. 24, 2018)

By: Alyssa Conti

A floating restaurant “Waterfront” (hereinafter “the Barge”), owned by Waterfront Associates (hereinafter “Waterfront”) sunk on or about August 5, 2014 for reasons that remain unknown. Hosea Project Movers, LLC (hereinafter “Hosea”) and Waterfront entered into a contract on July 3, 2014 requiring Hosea to “remove personal property from the Barge” and to “use its best efforts to sell the Barge on Waterfront’s behalf”. (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162576) If the Barge could not be sold, Hosea was instructed to demolish the Barge. When the Barge sank roughly a month later, Hosea had not completed removal of the designated property, and the ability to sell the Barge was removed. Waterfront refused to pay Hosea’s final contract payment due to the aforementioned reasons.In December 2015, Hosea brought suit against Waterfront and C&B Marine to recover the revenue from the sinking of the Barge, later amending the complaint to assert six separate claims, alleging jurisdiction under admiralty law. Waterfront and C&B filed initial motions to dismiss and in the alternative motions for summary judgment. All the claims were dismissed or granted summary judgment except a single claim under state law against Waterfront for breach of contract. It is the remaining claim that has now been granted dismissal, or in the alternative summary judgment in favor of Waterfront.Waterfront’s original motion to dismiss that was denied claimed a lack of federal question jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss in this subsequent case alleges lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The central argument of the claim at hand is that the presumption previously made that the Barge is a “vessel” is incorrect under 1 U.S.C. § 3 and Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, 568 U.S. 115 (2013). Following Lozman, which determined a houseboat is not a “vessel” under 1 U.S.C. § 3, this court determined that the floating restaurant in question is also not a vessel. Id. This distinction means that the Admiralty Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.Hosea conceded the controlling doctrine and argued for the court to retain jurisdiction “given the extensive proceedings over which the court has already presided.” Id. However, the court decided it cannot retain jurisdiction that it never possessed. Further, the court pointed out that when it granted summary judgment for the previous claims under the initial faulty assumption that the Barge is a vessel, the court held the current case under supplemental jurisdiction. However, the general rule is that “a district court should dismiss supplemental state law claims if the federal claims have been dismissed before trial,” and this court reasoned that relevant factors “disfavor retention at this time.” Id.The court concluded by determining Hosea provided no evidence that Waterfront breached any aspect of the contract between them or that Waterfront was responsible for the sinking of the Barge. Therefore, if a presiding district judge finds this court should retain supplemental jurisdiction, the court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Waterfront is proper.