Case: 10-10695 Date Filed: 08/26/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________
No. 10-10695
_________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:09-cv-80594-WPD
THE CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
THAT CERTAIN UNNAMED GRAY, TWO-STORY VESSEL
APPROXIMATELY FIFTY-SEVEN FEET IN LENGTH,
her engines, tackle, apparel, furniture, equipment and all other
necessaries appertaining and belonging in rem,
Defendant,
FANE LOZMAN,
Claimant-Appellant.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
__________________________
(August 26, 2013)
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES
Case: 10-10695 Date Filed: 08/26/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Before MARCUS and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, FAWSETT,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Now before the Court are Appellant’s amended motion to remand this matter
to district court for an evidentiary hearing and Appellee’s motion to strike
Appellant’s reply in support of his motion for remand.
When this matter was last before us, we affirmed the district court judgment in
favor of Appellee. However, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the
structure in question was not a “vessel” for purposes of admiralty law, and thus that
the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the City’s action (herein the
“Admiralty Action”). See City of Riviera Beach v. That Certain Unnamed Gray,
Two-Story Vessel Approximately Fifty-Seven Feet in Length, 649 F.3d 1259 (11th
Cir. 2011), reversed sub nom Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, -- U.S. --, 133 S.Ct.
735 (2013). The Supreme Court expressly declined to remand for further
proceedings. Id., 133 S.Ct at 745-746.
Appellant has not shown that, despite the district court’s lack of subject matter
jurisdiction over the underlying action, the court would nevertheless be authorized
to award him damages and attorney’s fees. Appellant’s motion for remand is
DENIED, without prejudice to his right to pursue in an appropriate forum any
remedies that may be available to him.
2
Case: 10-10695 Date Filed: 08/26/2013 Page: 3 of 3
Appellee’s motion to strike is DENIED.
The judgment of the district court is REVERSED, and this matter is
REMANDED with instructions to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
3