United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
No. 95-4708.
ISBRANDTSEN MARINE SERVICES, INC., a Connecticut Corporation,
Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee,
Florida Transportation Services, Inc., Intervenor-Plaintiff,
v.
M/V INAGUA TANIA, Her Engines, Tackle, Apparel, Freights, etc.,
in rem, Defendant-Intervenor-Defendant,
Zuki Teria Navigation, Inc., Claimant-Defendant-Counter-Claimant-
Appellant,
Sea Road Shipping, Inc., Defendant.
Nov. 15, 1995.
Appeal from the United States District Court Southern District of
Florida. (No. 95-6206-CIV-WJZ), William J. Zloch, Judge.
Before BIRCH and CARNES, Circuit Judges, and SIMONS*, Senior
District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Zuki Teria is a Panamanian Corporation, which owned
the M/V INAGUA TANIA. Appellee Isbrandtsen Marine Services, Inc.
("IMS") provided bunkers and lube oil to the vessel on the order of
the vessel's charterers, Inagua Lines and Sea Road Shipping. IMS
thereby held a maritime lien against the vessel. Zuki Teria also
contracted directly with IMS to provide bunkers and lube oil to the
vessel, and agreed to pay IMS a consulting fee.
IMS made repeated demands for payment, but Inagua Lines, Sea
Road Shipping and Zuki Teria failed to pay for the bunkers and lube
*
Honorable Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior U.S. District
Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.
oil. Zuki Teria also failed to pay for the consulting fees sought
by IMS.
IMS executed on its maritime lien and the M/V INAGUA TANIA was
arrested on March 1, 1995. Subsequently the District Court set the
bond necessary to secure the vessel's release at $294,560.00. IMS
purchased the vessel at the Marshal's sale on May 16, 1995. The
District Court confirmed the sale on June 21, 1995. IMS
subsequently sold the M/V INAGUA TANIA to Todds Point Marine, Inc.,
a party not involved in this action. There was no dispute that the
vessel thereafter sailed from Fort Lauderdale and is no longer in
the court's jurisdiction.
Appellant Zuki Teria brought this Interlocutory Appeal
challenging the Order setting the bond amount, the Order for
interlocutory sale, and Orders denying Zuki Teria's Motions for
Reconsideration of those Orders. The Orders from which appellant
Zuki Teria appeals are not "final Orders under 28 U.S.C. Section
1291." Instead, Zuki Teria relies on 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(a)(3)
to justify an Interlocutory Appeal.
Section 1292(a)(3) "provides jurisdiction of appeals from
"[i]nterlocutory decrees ... determining the rights and liabilities
of the parties to admiralty cases in which appeals from final
decrees are allowed.' " Bradford Marine, Inc. v. M/V SEA FALCON,
64 F.3d 585, 588 (11th Cir.1995), citing Nichols v. Barwick, 792
F.2d 1520, 1522 (11th Cir.1986). Here, because the Order setting
the bond does not determine the rights and liabilities of the
parties, we conclude that it is not subject to interlocutory appeal
under Section 1292(a)(3). City of Fort Madison, Iowa v. Emerald
Lady, 990 F.2d 1086, 1090 (8th Cir.1993); Silver Star Enterprises,
Inc. v. M/V SARAMACCA, 19 F.3d 1008, 1013 (5th Cir.1994).
As for the Orders directing and confirming the sale of the
vessel, pursuant to the teachings of Bradford Marine, appellate
jurisdiction exists under Section 1292(a)(3). We conclude,
however, that these appeals became moot upon the departure of the
vessel from the court's jurisdiction, since all of Zuki Teria's
arguments concerning the sale focus on its claim to possession of
the vessel. See Fed.R.Civ.P.Supp.R. C(2); Mackensworth v. SS
AMERICAN MERCHANT, 28 F.3d 246, 252 (2nd Cir.1994); American Bank
of Wage Claims v. Registry of Dist. Court of Guam, 431 F.2d 1215,
1218 (9th Cir.1970).
For the reasons stated above, the appeal of the Order setting
the bond is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the remaining
issues are dismissed as moot.
DISMISSED.