US v. Ernst Jacob GmbH & Co. KG
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Reversed in Part
The First Circuit held that it had interlocutory jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3) because the case included third-party admiralty claims, and it reversed the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment that had imposed liability on the shipowner and guarantor for natural-resource damages under the Oil Pollution Act. The court ruled that the district judge applied the wrong legal standard: the government had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the grounding posed a "substantial threat" of an oil discharge, rather than receiving deferential APA review of the Coast Guard On-Scene Coordinator’s determination, and the court must also decide whether the damaged coral reefs are resources "managed or controlled" by the United States.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether the presence of a third-party admiralty claim makes the entire case an "admiralty case" for purposes of interlocutory appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3).
Circuit Positions
A case that includes any Rule 9(h) third-party admiralty claim is an admiralty case under § 1292(a)(3).
Only the original plaintiff’s pleadings can render a case an admiralty case; third-party maritime claims do not suffice for § 1292(a)(3) jurisdiction.
Conflict Summary
The First Circuit held that any properly designated third-party admiralty claim brings the whole action within § 1292(a)(3), whereas the Fifth Circuit (Poincon v. Offshore Marine Contractors, Inc., 9 F.4th 289 (5th Cir. 2021)) ruled that only the original plaintiff’s designation can create an admiralty case and that third-party maritime claims do not confer § 1292(a)(3) jurisdiction.