Gil Auslander, Class of 2012

English

St. John's University School of Law

Admiralty Practicum Volume 2011 Issue 1 Fall 2011 Article 3 March 2018 Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit 636 F.3d 1338 (Decided March 31, 2011) Gil Auslander, Class of 2012 Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/admiralty_practicum  Part of the Admiralty Commons Recommended Citation Gil Auslander, Class of 2012 (2011) "Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit 636 F.3d 1338 (Decided March 31, 2011)," Admiralty Practicum: Vol. 2011 : Iss. 1 , Article 3. Available at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/admiralty_practicum/vol2011/iss1/3 This Recent Admiralty Cases is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Admiralty Practicum by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact selbyc@stjohns.edu. SUIT FOR RECISSION OF A CONTRACT CONCERNING UTILIZATION OF RESEARCH, WHICH AIDED EFFORTS TO LOCATE A SHIPWRECK, WAS COGNIZABLE UNDER FEDERAL ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, after finding that appellant's claim was proper under federal admiralty jurisdiction, reversed and remanded the district court's dismissal Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit 636 F.3d 1338 (Decided March 31, 2011) The primary question presented in Odyssey Marine Exploration v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel was whether federal court possessed federal admiralty jurisdiction1 to hear appellant Keith Bray's ("Bray") action for contract rescission? Bray sought to intervene in an in rem proceeding initiated by Odyssey Marine Exploration ("Odyssey"), appellee, for ownership of a sunken vessel, claimed by the Kingdom of Spain. At bar was whether Bray's suit still sounded under federal admiralty jurisdiction after the underlying in rem proceeding had been dismissed. Bray entered into two agreements with Odyssey, an oral contract and a written contract. The oral agreement provided that Bray would furnish research and data concerning the potential site of the Merchant Royal, a sunken vessel purportedly containing highly valuable cargo. In consideration for this information, Odyssey was to provide Bray with proceeds from the recovery of the Merchant Royal, cover research costs, and keep him informed of their efforts to locate the vessel. According to Bray, he was never kept abreast of the search progress and, after five years, entered into the written contract with Odyssey after it represented that the search for the Merchant Royal had ceased. The terms of the written agreement provided that Odyssey would pay Bray a "payment in full" cash sum for his previously furnished research. 3 Shortly thereafter, Bray learned that Odyssey had continued searching for the Merchant Royal and indeed had found a sunken vessel. Consequently, Odyssey initiated an in rem claim to ownership of the vessel, prompting Bray to seek intervention to rescind the written contract and reinstate the oral contract. After finding that the shipwreck was not the Merchant Royal, the district court dismissed the in rem proceeding. Consequently, the Court, sua sponte, evaluated whether it possessed subject matter jurisdiction to consider Bray's suit. It concluded that with the underlying claim dismissed, Bray's suit did not lie in federal admiralty jurisdiction. Bray appealed and the Eleventh Circuit, followin.g de novo review, reversed, commenting that "the contracts here have a more genuinely salty flavor,"4 and concluded that Bray's claim was "properly cognizable under federal admiralty jurisdiction."5 The criterion applied by the Court in considering whether a suit sounded in admiralty was to look at the "nature and character of the contract" to see whether the contract involved references to maritime services or transactions. 6 Here, because the contract concerned an agreement to utilize research that would contribute in the search for a shipwreck, the contract was in admiralty. In reaching its conclusion, the Court relied on precedent that held the salvage of shipwrecks and contracts involving maritime commercial ventures were proper under federal 1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1333 (2006). 2 636 F.3d 1338 , 1339-40 (11th Cir. 2011). 3 !d. at 1339. 4 !d. at 1340. 5 !d. at 1341. 6 !d. at 1340 (quoting Norfolk S. Ry. v. Kirby, 543 U.S. 14, 24 (2004)). 3 admiralty jurisdiction. 7 Consequently, the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded the judgment of the district court. Gil Auslander Class of 2012 7 Id. at 1341 (citing Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. Unidentified Wrecked and Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 569 F.2d 330, 333-36 (5th Cir. 1978)). 4 

Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit 636 F.3d 1338 (Decided March 31, 2011)

bepress Legal Repository

https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1207&amp;context=admiralty_practicum

Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit 636 F.3d 1338 (Decided March 31, 2011)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

St. John's University School of Law

bepress Legal Repository