Historic Aircraft Rec. v. Wrecked and Aband. F4U-1
| Decision Date | 24 November 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-CV-150-P-S.,03-CV-150-P-S. |
| Citation | 294 F.Supp.2d 132 |
| Parties | HISTORIC AIRCRAFT RECOVERY CORP., Plaintiff v. WRECKED AND ABANDONED VOIGHT F4U-1 CORSAIR AIRCRAFT And their constituent parts located on Submerged Lands within the following Coordinates: 43 52.800 North, 070 35.008 West; 43 52.800 North, 070 32.000 West; 43 50.845 North, 070 32.000 West; & 43 40.845 North, 070 35.008 West, In Rem Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
William H. Laubenstein, III, Assistant Attorney General, Paul Stern, Assistant Attorney General, Augusta, ME, Damon C. Miller, U.S. Department of Justice, Torts Branch, Civil Div., James A. Goold, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC, Seth W. Brewster, Verrill & Dana, Portland, ME, for State of Maine, United States of America, United Kingdom.
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Presently before the Court are two motions to dismiss: (1) Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) filed by the State of Maine (Docket # 20) (the ) and (2) Motion of the United Kingdom to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) (Docket # 25) (the "United Kingdom's Motion to Dismiss"). For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the State's Motion to Dismiss and, therefore, finds the United Kingdom's Motion to Dismiss MOOT.
The motions to dismiss filed by the State of Maine and the United Kingdom seek dismissal of this action under various theories, including lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Under these circumstances, the Court must first address the question of subject matter jurisdiction. See Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946); Deniz v. Municipality of Guaynabo, 285 F.3d 142, 149-50 (1st Cir.2002) ( ) (citations omitted).
At the pleading stage, a court may dismiss a claim under Rule 12(b)(1) "only when the facts alleged in the complaint, taken as true, do not justify the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction." Muniz-Rivera v. United States, 326 F.3d 8, 11 (1st Cir.2003). Alternatively, if there is a "factual challenge" to the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint, "the court enjoys broad authority to ... consider extrinsic evidence and hold evidentiary hearings in order to determine its own jurisdiction." Valentin v. Hospital Bella Vista, 254 F.3d 358, 364 (1st Cir.2001). In the end, the Court must be satisfied that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the case before addressing the merits.
In laying out the facts below, the Court assumes the facts alleged in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Docket # 14) are true but also considers the extrinsic evidence submitted by both sides in connection with the State's Motion to Dismiss.
On May 16, 1944, two Voight Corsair F4U-1 Fighter Aircraft (the "Aircraft") took off from a United States Air Naval Facility within Maine. The pilots, SubLieutenant Vaughn Reginald Gill and SubLieutenant Raymond Lawrence Knott, were members of the British military taking part in a World War II training mission. While flying over Sebago Lake, the planes collided midair. Despite a search of the Lake at the location where the collision reportedly occurred, neither of the pilots nor their respective planes were found. Ultimately, it was determined that the pilots had not survived the crash and the Aircraft were deemed destroyed by the collision. In the almost sixty years that have passed since the crash, neither the United States nor the United Kingdom have attempted to recover the Aircraft; nor does it appear that any private entity has attempted to raise the Aircraft until now.
As its name suggests, Plaintiff Historic Aircraft Recovery Corporation ("HARC") is in the business of salvaging historic planes. Using sonar and photographic imaging, HARC claims to have located at least one of the Corsair Aircraft lying beneath approximately 200 feet of fresh water in Sebago Lake. Through this in rem action, Plaintiff seeks permission from this Court to raise the Aircraft out of Sebago Lake. Asserting claims pursuant to the law of salvage and the law of finds, Plaintiff ultimately seeks not only salvage rights, but also title to the military Aircraft.
Sebago Lake is a body of water located entirely within the State of Maine. In fact, it is Maine's deepest lake and, with approximately 105 miles of shoreline, it is also one of Maine's largest lakes. As such, Sebago Lake is considered a "great pond" and the Lake, its contents and the submerged land underneath are held in trust by the State of Maine for the public. Conant v. Jordan, 107 Me. 227, 77 A. 938, 939 (1910); see 12 M.R.S.A. § 1865(1). From approximately 1830 until 1870, it was possible to navigate from Sebago Lake to the Atlantic Ocean via the Cumberland & Oxford Canal. However, for well over a century, Sebago Lake has been essentially landlocked and navigation is limited to other connected bodies of water within Maine. As the parties note in their papers, Sebago Lake supports some limited commercial activity in the form of a ferry service, which transports people to an island located within the Lake. But for the ferry service, Sebago Lake is generally used for recreation. In addition, Sebago Lake serves as the water source for the greater Portland area.
Given the State's interest in Sebago Lake, it is perhaps not surprising that it has appeared in this case and taken a great interest in HARC's desire to salvage the Aircraft from the Lake. Simply stated, the State's position is that
[S]ubject to the potential rights of the United Kingdom and/or the United States in the aircraft, the two Voight F4U-1 Corsair Aircraft lost in Sebago Lake on or about May 16, 1944, their constituent parts and the artifacts therefrom, are the property of the State and are of archeological and historical significance and must be left undisturbed and preserved. The State has not abandoned its ownership and other interests in the aircraft and has not consented to the salvage, disturbance or other action by Historic Aircraft Recovery Corporation or any other unauthorized entity or person ....
(Statement of Interest of the Maine State Museum (Docket # 23) ¶ 6.) In furtherance of its position, the State has issued two Emergency Site Declarations pursuant to 27 M.R.S.A § 378. Both Emergency Site Declarations were issued subsequent to the filing of this action and make it illegal to excavate the submerged Aircraft without a permit from the State. The Declarations also state that Maine believes that the remains of the Aircraft are "eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places." (Aff. Of Earle G. Shettleworth, Jr. (Docket # 22) Exs. 1 & 2.)
The United Kingdom also has appeared to voice its objections to Plaintiff's proposed salvage of the Aircraft. The United Kingdom's interest in prohibiting Plaintiff's proposed salvage arises out of its expressed desire to preserve what it considers to be military grave sites of the two British pilots who were flying the Aircraft at the time of the crash. While the United Kingdom's motion makes numerous potentially meritorious arguments as to why this case should be dismissed, as explained below, the Court cannot reach these arguments given its lack of jurisdiction.
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Docket # 14) alleges that this case falls under the Court's admiralty jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333.1 The State's Motion to Dismiss argues that this in rem action does not fall within the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court.2 Specifically, the State's Motion to Dismiss requires that the Court answer the following question: Do claims seeking salvage rights and title to a military aircraft submerged in an intrastate body of water fall within the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court?
As explained below, the Court ultimately answers this question in the negative and finds that extending admiralty jurisdiction to Plaintiff's claims would simply bring admiralty into uncharted waters. In order to reach this conclusion, the Court below discusses and applies the jurisdictional standards suggested by both parties. However, finding the State's proposed Grubart test inapplicable and Plaintiff's proposal illogical, the Court is left to chart its own course in defining the limits of admiralty jurisdiction with respect to HARC's asserted claims. The course may not be particularly straightforward but as Justice Holmes once explained, "The precise scope of admiralty jurisdiction is not a matter of obvious principle or of very accurate history." U.S. v. Evans (The Blackheath), 195 U.S. 361, 365, 25 S.Ct. 46, 49 L.Ed. 236 (1904).
The State's Motion to Dismiss advocates for the application of the admiralty jurisdiction test laid out in Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 115 S.Ct. 1043, 130 L.Ed.2d 1024 (1995). (See State's Mot. to Dismiss at 4.) As explained by the Supreme Court in Grubart:
[A] party seeking to invoke federal admiralty jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) over a tort claim must satisfy conditions both of location...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sunglory Mar., Ltd. v. PHI, Inc.
...1260 & n.13 (11th Cir. 2000) —similarly, upon closer examination, fails to support PHI's argument.186 Rec. Doc. 57 at 14 (citing 294 F.Supp.2d 132, 139 (D. Me. 2003) ).187 Historic Aircraft Recovery, 294 F.Supp.2d at 135.188 Id. at 139 (citing Executive Jet Aviation v. City of Cleveland, 40......
-
Sunglory Mar. Ltd. v. Phi, Inc.
...into navigable waters and was abandoned by the owner.45 Furthermore, PHI claims, at least one court—the District of Maine in Historic Aircraft Recovery Corp. v. Wrecked & Abandoned Voight F4U-1 Corsair Aircraft—has strongly questioned the extension of the law of maritime salvage to claims r......
-
Sullivan v. General Helicopters, Int'L, Civil No. L-07-2825.
...have struggled mightily to fashion a coherent standard for determining their authority to hear the dispute. See id., Historic Aircraft Recovery, v. Wrecked and Aband. F4U-1., 294 F.Supp.2d 132 (D.Me.2003). It is to this challenge that we presently The Defendants submit, and the Court is inc......