Garcia v. United States

• Decision Date: 19 January 2021
• Docket Number: No. 19-40718,19-40718
• Citation: 986 F.3d 513
• Parties: Francisco ORTEGA GARCIA, individually and as surviving spouse of Patricia Guadalupe Garcia Cervantes, and as successor-in-interest to the estate; and as next friend of V.S.O.G., a minor child, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Mercury Marine, a division of Brunswick Corporation; Safe Boats International, L.L.C., Defendants—Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

986 F.3d 513

Francisco ORTEGA GARCIA, individually and as surviving spouse of Patricia Guadalupe Garcia Cervantes, and as successor-in-interest to the estate; and as next friend of V.S.O.G., a minor child, Plaintiff—Appellant,

v.UNITED STATES of America; Mercury Marine, a division of Brunswick Corporation; Safe Boats International, L.L.C., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 19-40718

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

FILED January 19, 2021

Javier Villarreal, Trial Attorney, Law Offices of Javier Villarreal, P.L.L.C., Brownsville, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Dennis Fan, Michelle Terry Delemarre, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee United States of America.

Stephen P. Ellenbecker, Johnson & Bell, Limited, Chicago, IL, Deirdre Claire McGlinchey, Esq., Patrick John O'Cain, McGlinchey Stafford, P.L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, Jaime A. Saenz, Colvin, Chaney, Saenz & Rodriguez, L.L.P., Brownsville, TX, for Defendant-Appellee Mercury Marine, a Division of Brunswick Corporation.

Jadd Fitzgerald Masso, Esq., Clark Hill Strasburger, Dallas, TX, Mark Allan Freeman, Attorney, Marianne Elizabeth Laine, Clark Hill Strasburger, Beaumont, TX, for Defendant-Appellee Safe Boats International, L.L.C.

Before Jolly, Jones, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Don R. Willett, Circuit Judge:

While patrolling the Brownsville Ship Channel around midnight, a United States Coast Guard vessel struck and killed Patricia Guadalupe Garcia Cervantes, a Mexican citizen who was attempting to enter the United States illegally by swimming across the Channel. Litigation ensued. Francisco Ortega Garcia, individually and on behalf of his and Cervantes’ daughter, V.S.O.G., brought (1) negligence and wrongful death claims against the United States and (2) products liability, gross negligence, and wrongful death claims against the manufacturers of the vessel and its engines, Safe Boats and Mercury Marine.

The district court dismissed everything. It dismissed the negligence claim against the United States, concluding that the United States owed no duty to Cervantes. It dismissed the products liability claims against Safe Boats and Mercury Marine, concluding that Cervantes, as a bystander, lacked standing to bring those claims. And, because it dismissed all the underlying tort claims, the district court dismissed the wrongful death claims. For the reasons below, we affirm the dismissal of all Garcia's claims against the United States, Safe Boats, and Mercury Marine.

I

A

The Brownsville Ship Channel (BSC) lies just three miles north of the mouth of the Rio Grande and connects the Port of Brownsville with the Gulf of Mexico.¹ The BSC is a "high-traffic waterway, travelled day and night by various vessels from small fishing boats to large tankers."² In general, "there is no posted speed limit" on the BSC,³ and "[t]here are no lights along the [BSC], making it very dark at night."⁴

The United States Coast Guard maintains a station on South Padre Island, near the BSC. The station's "primary missions" include "search and rescue and maritime law enforcement." Coast Guard law enforcement patrols roughly 30 miles of the Texas coast and several nearby waterways, including the BSC. The purpose of the patrols is "to deter and interdict immigrants and narcotic smugglers, ensure safety and security of the maritime facilities within the Port of Brownsville, and to conduct commercial and recreational vessel boardings to enforce various safety and security laws and regulations."

The Coast Guard's patrol route follows a southwestern course, departing from the South Padre Island station, traveling along the BSC, passing the Shrimp Basin, and reaching the Port of Brownsville Turning Basin, at which point the patrol crew turns around and heads back to the station. Coast Guard crews conduct BSC patrols aboard a Special Purpose Craft-Law Enforcement (SPC-LE) vessel. The Coast Guard developed specifications for the SPC-LE, including that it be a "planing" vessel, a type of vessel in which the bow rises while it is accelerating, only to fall again when it reaches "planing speed" of approximately 19.2 knots.⁵ The Coast Guard awarded the SPC-LE manufacturing contract to Safe Boats. Safe Boats complied with the Coast Guard's "planing" vessel specifications when it supplied its SPC-LEs, and these vessels included engines with propeller drives manufactured by Mercury Marine.

* * *

At 9:53 p.m. on April 23, 2015, four United States Coast Guard members commenced a patrol of the BSC aboard an SPC-LE vessel.⁶ At all relevant times, the vessel's navigation lights were on. Around 11:00 p.m., one of the crewmembers requested and received permission to accelerate the vessel to come up on plane. Two crewmembers assert that they looked forward before the vessel came up on plane and did not see anything in the water. In approximately 30 seconds, the vessel came up on plane. The vessel then transited for approximately 30 seconds at an average speed of 30.86 knots until the crew heard a "thud" or "thump" sound under the vessel's hull. The crew stopped the vessel, turned it around, and searched the area to identify the source of the sound. They spotted and recovered a pink plastic innertube. After this search, the crew continued the patrol and returned to the Coast Guard station around 12:40 a.m.; they reported to Coast Guard officials and showed their superiors the recovered pink innertube.

Unbeknownst to the crew, Patricia Guadalupe Garcia Cervantes, a Mexican citizen, and Galdino Jose Ruiz-Hernandez, a human smuggler, had been attempting to illegally enter the United States by swimming across the BSC.⁷ Cervantes was using a pink innertube as a flotation device. Cervantes was struck by the Coast Guard crew's vessel approximately 30 seconds after the vessel had fully come up onto plane. An autopsy, conducted three days after this incident, revealed that the injuries on Cervantes’ body were consistent with the shape of the vessel's propeller blades, and the coroner determined that Cervantes "died nearly instantly" after the collision "because of the initial blunt force trauma and blood loss." The Coast Guard conducted an investigation of the incident, which was summarized in a Major Incident Report, completed on July 14, 2015.

B

Francisco Ortega Garcia brought this suit in his individual capacity, as Cervantes’ spouse and administrator of her estate, and on behalf of his and Cervantes’ minor daughter, V.S.O.G. Garcia asserted several claims against three defendants: (1) negligence and wrongful death claims against the United States for the Coast Guard's operation of the vessel; (2) strict products liability, gross negligence, and wrongful death claims against Safe Boats regarding the vessel; and (3) strict products liability, gross negligence, and wrongful death claims against Mercury Marine regarding the vessel's engines.

The United States moved to dismiss parts of Garcia's negligence claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.⁸ Safe Boats moved for partial summary judgment on four different issues.⁹ While all these motions were pending, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending that all of Garcia's claims be dismissed. Garcia timely filed objections to the R&R. The district court overruled Garcia's objections, adopted the magistrate judge's R&R in its entirety, and dismissed all of Garcia's claims with prejudice. Specifically, the district court determined that: (1) Garcia failed to identify what duty the United States owed to Cervantes; (2) he failed to show that Safe Boats and Mercury Marine had a duty to warn Cervantes; (3) he could not maintain the maritime products liability claims because Cervantes, as a "casual bystander," lacked standing to bring those claims; and (4) he could not maintain wrongful death claims because all the underlying tort claims were dismissed. Garcia appealed.

II

Before reaching the issues that Garcia raises on appeal, there are three threshold matters: (1) whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction; (2) whether Garcia has standing to sue in his individual capacity; and (3) the proper standard of review. We address each in turn.

A

First, we address the parties’ confusion about the basis for the district court's subject-matter jurisdiction.¹⁰ Because Garcia brings claims against the United States, our subject-matter jurisdiction analysis involves two inquiries: (1) Did the United States waive its sovereign immunity? And if so, (2) does diversity or admiralty subject-matter jurisdiction apply?

Turning to the first inquiry: To maintain a suit in district court against the United States, a plaintiff must bring claims under a statute in which Congress expressly waives the United States’ sovereign immunity.¹¹ Garcia brings his claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)¹² or, in the alternative, the Suits in Admiralty Act (SIAA)¹³ and the Public Vessels Act (PVA).¹⁴ Determining which waiver statute applies matters because the FTCA excludes claims in admiralty, while the SIAA and PVA do not.¹⁵ So, we must first decide whether Garcia's claims are admiralty claims.

A party seeking to invoke federal admiralty jurisdiction over a tort claim must demonstrate that the tortious activity (1) "occurred on navigable water" or that an "injury suffered on land was caused by a vessel on navigable water," and (2) bears a "connection with the maritime activity."¹⁶ Garcia has done both. First, he alleges that Cervantes’ death occurred on the BSC. Second, he alleges that her death was caused by a Coast Guard vessel, which clearly bears a connection with maritime activity.¹⁷

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(h) specifies how a pleading may designate claims as admiralty claims.¹⁸ A party need not make a specific reference to Rule 9(h) in his complaint, as long as the complaint contains "a simple statement asserting admiralty or maritime claims," which we have held sufficient to invoke a district court's admiralty jurisdiction.¹...