Listen to this article
Where a complaint has been filed over damage caused by a boat stored in a shed on land, the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction despite a prior federal action brought by the defendant.
“Defendant, John Sanocki, has moved to dismiss under MCR 2.116(C)(4), (C)(7), and (C)(8). Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is ground for dismissal under subrule (C)(4).
“The parties do not contest the following facts: John Sanocki stored his boat in a shed on land. There was a fire in the shed that damaged other boats owned by other people. On receiving claims for damages from those people, Sanocki filed an action in federal court seeking the protection of the Exoneration and Limitation of Liability provisions of United States Code Title 46 (46 USC 30521through 30530). Not all of the people whose boats were damaged appeared in that case, GEICO’s subrogors among them. The claimants in that case moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. But Sanocki settled with the claimants before the court decided the motion. The federal court did not make any findings regarding its jurisdiction. The order dismissing the case barred any claims against Sanocki by the defaulting parties. It excepted three of the subrogors here, Jim Snead, William Oliver, and Matthias Meyer, because they had not been served process. Sanocki argues that the federal court, sitting in admiralty, had exclusive jurisdiction over this dispute and that the dismissal order bars this action. GEICO responds that the federal court lacked jurisdiction.
“The collateral-bar rule generally prohibits indirect attack on a previous judgment in a later, separate action unless the court that issued the earlier judgment lacked personal or subject-matter jurisdiction in the first place.
“A party seeking to invoke federal admiralty jurisdiction over a tort claim must satisfy conditions both of location and connection with maritime activity.
“Sanocki fails both tests.
“The court finds that the federal court to which Sanocki resorted for the protections of maritime law had no jurisdiction to hear his petition.”
Geico Marine Ins. Co. v. Sanocki; MiLW No. 10-109209, 4 pages; 14th Circuit Court; Hoopes, J.
