Energetic Tank, Inc. v. Unknown

Background

The case concerns a collision on August 21, 2017, between the United States Navy destroyer U.S.S. JOHN S. MCCAIN and the M/V ALNIC in the Strait of Singapore. Energetic Tank, Inc., identified as the owner of the ALNIC, brought the admiralty proceeding seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability. The United States Government, injured U.S. sailors aboard the MCCAIN, and representatives of sailors who died in the collision participated in the case.

In an earlier order, the court applied maritime choice-of-law principles associated with Lauritzen v. Larsen, Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., and Hellenic Lines Ltd. v. Rhoditis. It selected Singapore law for substantive questions of liability and for the availability and calculation of damages. The opinion states that the parties had agreed that liability and damages would be treated as a package under the same substantive law.

Motions for Reconsideration

The Tabak Claimants, the Hofmann Claimants, and Claimant Francesco Sanfilippo each sought reconsideration of the earlier choice-of-law ruling. The Tabak Claimants argued that U.S. law should govern liability and damages and that the court had overlooked case law concerning collisions between vessels in foreign waters. They also raised, for the first time in reply, arguments about who had to prove the content of foreign law and whether Singapore and U.S. law were the same concerning damages.

The Hofmann Claimants, identified as 27 injured U.S. Navy sailors, renewed arguments that the law of the vessel’s flag should receive greater weight and that the court had made clear error or caused manifest injustice by selecting Singapore law. They also adopted, in reply, arguments about applying different laws to different issues.

Sanfilippo sought reconsideration and application of U.S. law, or alternatively application of the principle of dépecage, which allows different laws to govern different issues or parts of a claim. The court stated that this principle had not been properly argued in the original briefing and that no legal or factual basis for applying it in this case had been articulated.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that reconsideration is limited and is not a chance to take a second attempt at arguments already presented. The moving party must identify controlling decisions or information that the court overlooked and that could reasonably change the result. Reconsideration may be justified by an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or the need to prevent a serious injustice. New facts, issues, arguments, theories, or evidence generally may not be introduced through such a motion.

The court rejected the claimants’ contention that it had failed to consider their positions. It explained that the earlier order had applied the relevant maritime choice-of-law framework and had considered the arguments about the place of the collision, the vessels’ flags, Singapore and Malaysia’s claims concerning the surrounding waters, liability, and damages. The court stated that disagreement with its earlier decision was not enough to warrant reconsideration.

As to the Tabak Claimants, the court found that their cited authority was not binding and did not identify a controlling decision that the court had overlooked. It also concluded that their arguments concerning damages had been considered and rejected earlier. The court further held that their new arguments about foreign-law proof and the similarity between Singapore and U.S. damages law came too late.

As to the Hofmann Claimants, the court found that their arguments about the Lauritzen framework, the relevance of the place of the wrong, the vessel’s flag, and the surrounding waters had already been considered. The cited decisions did not present new or binding legal considerations requiring reconsideration. The court also declined to consider their belated adoption of Sanfilippo’s dépecage argument as a basis for reconsideration.

As to Sanfilippo, the court found that the cited authorities did not support reconsideration. It stated that the earlier ruling had expressly applied the Lauritzen factors and had rejected the argument that U.S. law should apply whenever a Navy ship is involved in a collision anywhere in the world. The court also found that dépecage had not been properly raised in the original briefing and that a brief mention of the concept by a different claimant’s counsel at oral argument did not preserve the issue for Sanfilippo.

Disposition

The court denied the Tabak Claimants’ motion for reconsideration, denied the Hofmann Claimants’ motion for reconsideration, and denied Claimant Sanfilippo’s motion for reconsideration. The conclusion states that the motions for reconsideration were denied, and the clerk was directed to close the motions at Docket Nos. 254, 256, and 258. This opinion did not change the earlier selection of Singapore law.