Auction Block Company v. Federal Maritime Commission

Good Law
606 F. App'x 347
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 29, 201514-72609California714 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

The Federal Maritime Commission correctly dismissed petitioners’ complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The parties agree that the Commission had jurisdiction only if the City of Homer qualifies as a “marine terminal operator” under the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. § 40101 et seq. The' Act defines “marine terminal operator” as “a person engaged in the United States in the business of providing ... terminal facilities in connection with a common carrier.” Id. § 40102(14). “Common carrier,” in turn, is defined as a person transporting passengers or cargo through the use of “a vessel operating on the high seas ... between a port in the United States and a port in a foreign country.” Id. § 40102(6).

The City of Homer provides terminal facilities to common carriers at the Deep Water Dock and the Pioneer Dock. But petitioners’ complaint arises out of a dispute involving the City’s Fish Dock. The Commission determined that the City is not a “marine terminal operator” with respect to the Fish Dock because, while the City provides terminal facilities there, it does not do so “in connection with a common carrier.” Id. § 40102(14).

We find no error in the Commission’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.