Supplemental Rules For Certain Admiralty And Maritime Claims

71 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. ONE Urban LOT
  978 F.2d 776· 1st Cir.· 1992-11-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the claimant's late-filed claim in a forfeiture proceeding.
• United States v. ONE Parcel OF Real Prop. With THE Bldg.
  964 F.2d 1244· 1st Cir.· 1992-05-28 ·cited 2×
  A district court cannot enlarge a forfeiture order to include property not specifically identified in the original complaint, as this violates the particularity requirements of the Supplemental Admiralty Rules.
• United States v. $260
  919 F.2d 686· 11th Cir.· 1990-12-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the claimant had constitutional standing, his claim was insufficient under Rule C(6) for failing to name his bailor, but he should be allowed to amend.
• MacDOUGALLS' Cape COD Marine Serv., Inc. v. ONE Christina 40' Vessel
  900 F.2d 408· 1st Cir.· 1990-03-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court correctly vacated the default judgment and dismissed the complaint due to a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction stemming from a due process violation in providing notice.
• United States v. ONE Assortment OF Eighty-Nine Firearms AND SIX Hundred AND Thirty-Eight Rounds OF Ammunition
  846 F.2d 24· 6th Cir.· 1988-05-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a claimant's time to file a claim in a forfeiture action runs from the execution of process, not from service of the complaint, and that early filing can be excused by government actions.
• Me. Nat'l Bank v. F/V Explorer
  833 F.2d 375· 1st Cir.· 1987-11-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the notice provided complied with controlling law and that the appellant failed to demonstrate the excusable neglect required to vacate a default judgment.
• United States v. Fifty Seven Thousand
  42 F. Supp. 2d 1293· S.D. Fla.· 1999-01-24 ·cited 1×
  The court denied the government's motion for summary judgment on Count I but found probable cause for Counts II and III, and denied the claimant's motion to dismiss for Counts II and III.
• United States v. Real Prop. Located at 3284 Brewster Drive
  949 F. Supp. 832· M.D. Fla.· 1996-12-19 ·cited 1×
  The court granted the petition for a warrant of arrest in rem, finding that the proposed warrant adequately protects the owners' due process rights without requiring physical seizure of the real property.
• United States v. Ford 250 Pickup 1990
  980 F.2d 1242· 8th Cir.· 1992-12-08 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the claimant's claim and entering default judgment because the claimant failed to strictly comply with procedural rules and lacked standing.
• Drenth v. All Potential
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-20
  The court held that the petitioner's motion for an order approving a letter of undertaking and directing issuance of monition and injunction is denied without prejudice because the petitioner failed to file an ad interim stipulation of value.
• Tug Breton Sound (On: 1244858)
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-06-23
  The court held that a single claimant may pursue their action in state court, provided they file stipulations protecting the vessel owner's right to have the admiralty court ultimately adjudicate its claim to limited liability.
• In re Petition of Diane Rieck titled owner of & for a 2003 51' Sea Ray Boats hull identification No. SERP5690H203
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-08-10
  The court granted the petitioners' motion for reconsideration, approving their Letter of Undertaking and directing the Clerk to issue a monition and injunction, allowing them to proceed with their limitation of liability action.
• Paradise Fam., LLC v. Unknown Claimant(s)
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-06-29
  The court held that an ad interim stipulation for security in a limitation of liability action must identify a surety or be accompanied by a letter of undertaking to guarantee payment.
• Ik Yacht Design Inc v. Almost There M/V
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-11-15
  A district court may transfer an in rem admiralty action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) even if the vessel was not present in the transferee district when the action was filed, provided the transferee district would otherwise have jurisdiction.
• In re the Search of McCorkle
  972 F. Supp. 1423· M.D. Fla.· 1997-08-01
  The court held that it had anomalous jurisdiction to hear the motion for return of seized property, but found that the Movants failed to show that the probable cause determination for the seizure warrants was erroneous or that irreparable harm would result from the government's r
• United States v. Amiel
  995 F.2d 367· 2d Cir.· 1993-06-09
  The court held that it was premature to decide the double jeopardy issue at this stage because the civil forfeiture proceedings and criminal trial were not yet concluded, making it impossible to determine if the forfeiture constituted punishment.
• Taino Lines, Inc. v. M/V Constance PAN Atlantic
  982 F.2d 20· 1st Cir.· 1992-12-23
  The court affirmed the district court's award of full custodia legis expenses, finding no abuse of discretion in denying equitable relief or in foregoing a hearing.
• United States v. LOT 65 Pine Meadow
  976 F.2d 1155· 8th Cir.· 1992-10-02
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the government's untimely motion to strike and denying the appellant's motion for an extension of time to file a claim and answer.
• United States v. ONE 1988 Dodge Pickup
  959 F.2d 37· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-22
  A motion to set aside a default judgment, filed within ten days of entry, is treated as a Rule 59(e) motion for purposes of Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4), thus tolling the time for appeal. The notice of appeal was timely.
• Fednav, Ltd. v. Isoramar, S.A.
  925 F.2d 599· 2d Cir.· 1991-02-12
  The court held that an agreement to contribute to the settlement of a maritime claim is not itself a maritime contract if the contributing party was not involved in the original maritime action or settlement.
• United States v. Republic Marine, Inc.
  829 F.2d 1399· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-01
  Strict liability under 33 U.S.C. §§ 408 and 412 does not apply if the government's maintenance of a navigation work was the sole cause of damage, and a vessel may waive in rem jurisdiction by a general appearance.