NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 4 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: COMPLAINT AND PETITION OF No. 18-55575
BLUE WATER BOATING, INC. AND
SKIP ABED AS OWNERS OF A SUP FOR D.C. No.
EXONERATION FROM OR LIMITATION 2:18-cv-01231-JFW-AS
OF LIABILITY,
______________________________
MEMORANDUM*
BLUE WATER BOATING, INC.; SKIP
ABED,
Petitioners-Appellants,
v.
AGNES NABISERE MUBANDA;
SOLOMON SSEMWANGA; CITY OF
SANTA BARBARA,
Claimants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 6, 2019
Pasadena, California
Before: MURGUIA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and GUIROLA,** District
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Judge.
Skip Abed and Blue Water Boating, Inc. (collectively, “Blue Water”) rent
watersports equipment to the public. Davies Kabogoza’s survivors filed a
wrongful death and survival action against Blue Water in California state court
after Kabogoza drowned in the Santa Barbara Harbor while using a stand-up
paddleboard (“SUP”) rented from Blue Water. Blue Water then filed an action in
federal court seeking to limit its liability to the value of the SUP.1 The district
court dismissed that action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
Tort claims invoking a federal court’s admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1333 must satisfy the location and maritime nexus tests, which require that: (1)
the alleged tort occur on navigable waters; (2) the alleged tort have the potential to
disrupt maritime commerce; and (3) the general character of the activity giving rise
to the tort have a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity. Jerome
B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 534, 538–40
(1995). Even assuming arguendo that the first and second of these requirements
**
The Honorable Louis Guirola, Jr., United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Mississippi, sitting by designation.
1
Blue Water sought to avail itself of the protections of the Limitation of
Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30505 et seq., which allows vessel owners to limit their
liability under certain circumstances.
2
are met, we affirm the district court’s order of dismissal because the complaint
does not allege a sufficient relationship to traditional maritime activity.2
Before invoking admiralty jurisdiction, a federal court must “ask whether a
tortfeasor’s activity . . . on navigable waters is so closely related to activity
traditionally subject to admiralty law that the reasons for applying special
admiralty rules would apply.” Grubart, 513 U.S. at 539–40. Although the case
law often associates “traditional maritime activity” with activity involving vessels,3
neither 28 U.S.C. § 1333 nor the maritime nexus test expressly require the
involvement of a vessel. Rather, we focus on the underlying activity at issue. See
Ali v. Rogers, 780 F.3d 1229, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015).
2
The parties do not dispute that the Santa Barbara Harbor is a body of
navigable water. We assume arguendo that the district court properly found the
second requirement satisfied.
3
See Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358, 365 (1990) (finding admiralty jurisdiction
over an incident involving a vessel’s storage and maintenance at a marina);
Foremost Ins. Co. v. Richardson, 457 U.S. 668, 677 (1982) (finding admiralty
jurisdiction over a collision between two vessels); Exec. Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of
Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249, 274 (1972) (declining to extend admiralty jurisdiction
over a plane crash in navigable waters); Mission Bay Jet Sports, 570 F.3d at 1129
(extending admiralty jurisdiction to an incident involving a jet ski); Gruver v.
Lesman Fisheries Inc., 489 F.3d 978, 986 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding admiralty
jurisdiction over a wage dispute for maritime services performed aboard a
commercial vessel); Taghadomi v. United States, 401 F.3d 1080, 1082, 1087, 1090
(9th Cir. 2005) (finding the location and nexus tests satisfied in incident involving
Coast Guard search-and-rescue operations, but affirming summary judgment on
other grounds).
3
Here, “the general character of the activity giving rise to the incident” does
not have “a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity.” See In re
Mission Bay Jet Sports, LLC, 570 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Grubart, 513 U.S. at 539). Blue Water’s alleged negligence involved the rental of
a SUP. Traditional maritime activity, however, generally relates to specialized
rules and technical concepts of maritime commerce such as “maritime liens, the
general average, captures and prizes, limitation of liability, cargo damage, and
claims for salvage,” see Exec. Jet, 409 U.S. at 270, as well as the navigation,
storage, and maintenance of traditional vessels, see Grubart, 513 U.S. at 539–40.
Those are not at issue here. Blue Water’s alleged negligence lacks both “maritime
flavor,” Ali, 780 F.3d at 1235, and a “close[] relat[ion] to activity traditionally
subject to admiralty law,” Gruver, 489 F.3d at 983 (quoting Grubart, 513 U.S. at
538). And there is no reason why special admiralty rules should apply. See
Grubart, 513 U.S. at 539–40.4
AFFIRMED.5
4
For similar reasons, Blue Water’s alternative argument that admiralty
contract jurisdiction applies, based on the release of liability form Kabogoza
signed, is unavailing. See Ali, 780 F.3d at 1235 (“Federal courts have admiralty
jurisdiction over a contract ‘if its subject matter is maritime.’”). None of the
claims before the federal district court or state court were contract claims. And the
Limitation Act does not, as Blue Water contends, independently support admiralty
jurisdiction. See Seven Resorts, Inc. v. Cantlen, 57 F.3d 771, 772–73 (9th Cir.
1995).
5
Appellees’ request for judicial notice, Dkt. 19, is denied.
4
Blue Water Boating, Inc. v. Agnes Mubanda
Combined Opinion