MACBRIDE NIG. LIMITED v. FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on November 26, 2013.(lcesh2)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MACBRIDE NIG. LIMITED (ADEBISI
ADENARIWO),
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 13-1201 (ESH)
v.
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff MacBride NIG Limited (Adebisi Adenariwo) filed a pro se lawsuit against the
Federal Maritime Commission (“Commission”) requesting judicial review of decisions made by
a Commission Settlement Officer. (Compl., Aug. 2, 2013 [ECF No. 1], at 2.) Defendant now
moves for dismissal. (Motion to Dismiss (“Mot.”), Oct. 1, 2013 [ECF No. 5].) For the reasons
stated below, defendant’s motion will be granted.
BACKGROUND
Under the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. §§ 40101 et seq., the Federal Maritime
Commission, an independent agency tasked with regulating international maritime commerce, is
permitted to hear and adjudicate the claims of independent parties alleging violations of the
statute. See 46 U.S.C. § 41301. Where the claimant requests less than $50,000, the parties may
agree to have the claim decided by a Commission Settlement Officer through an informal
adjudication process. 46 C.F.R. § 502.301(b). The decision reached by the Settlement Officer is
considered a final order after thirty days unless the Commission exercises its “discretionary
right” to review. 46 C.F.R. § 502.304(g). Under the Hobbs Act, exclusive jurisdiction for the
appeal of final orders by the Commission is vested in a federal court of appeals where venue is
proper. 28 U.S.C. § 2342; see also D. L. Piazza Co. v. W. Coast Line, 119 F. Supp. 937, 939
(N.D. Ill. 1953) (holding that federal district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction for
case brought under predecessor statute).
Pursuant to this statutory procedure, Mr. Adenariwo filed two claims with the
Commission on behalf of his company, MacBride Nigerian Ltd., against BDP International Inc.,
Zim Integrated Shipping, and Zim’s agent for shipping related disputes. (See Pltf.’s Exhibit,
4/18/2012 Settlement Officer Decision.) In order to avoid a lengthy and resource-intensive
process, plaintiff chose to limit each claim to $50,000 and pursue informal adjudication before a
Settlement Officer. (Compl. at 2.) On April 18, 2012, the Settlement Officer issued a decision
dismissing one claim as time-barred (Docket Number 1920(I)) and ordering Mr. Adenariwo to
demonstrate a valid assignment from his co-signee corporation, MacBride Nigerian Ltd., on the
other claim (Docket Number 1921(I)). (See Pltf.’s Exhibit, 4/18/2012 Settlement Officer
Decision.)
After Mr. Adenariwo supplemented the record in Docket Number 1921(I), the
Settlement Officer granted him reparations of $18,308.94 plus interest in a decision dated March
7, 2013. (See Pltf.’s Exhibit, 3/7/2013 Settlement Officer Decision.) Within thirty days,
however, the Commission exercised its right to review the Settlement Officer’s decision on
Docket Number 1921(I). (See Def.’s Ex. A, “Notice of Determination to Review”.) This review
is still pending.
ANALYSIS
Defendant recognizes that a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings are held to a less stringent
standard. Brown v. D.C., 514 F.3d 1279, 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Nevertheless, defendant argues
2
that this case must be dismissed on three independent grounds: (1) the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act; (2) the Commission’s decision on Docket 1921(I) is not yet
final; and (3) plaintiff fails to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons
discussed below, the Court agrees that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case and
that the case is not yet ripe for review in federal court. Therefore, without reaching the merits,
the case must be dismissed without prejudice.
First, under the explicit terms of the Hobbs Act “[t]he court of appeals has exclusive
jurisdiction to enjoin, set aside, suspend (in whole or in part), or to determine the validity of all
rules, regulations, or final orders of the Federal Maritime Commission issued pursuant to . . . 46
U.S.C. § 41304.” 28 U.S.C. § 2342. Plaintiff does not challenge the applicability of this statute
to his claims. To the contrary, he concedes this deficiency and requests that this Court “transfer
the case to the Court of Appeal [sic] when appropriate in time.” (“Motion to deny defendant’s
motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint,” [ECF No. 10], at 5.) However, this Court is only
permitted to transfer a case to another district court. See 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). Absent subject
matter jurisdiction, the Court has no choice but to dismiss the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(1).
Second, the Commission’s decision is not yet ripe for review by a federal court because it
is not yet a final order. See Bennet v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177-78 (1997). The confusion on this
point arises from the fact that the plaintiff brought two independent claims for informal
adjudication by the Settlement Officer that were “procedurally consolidated” because “they
involved substantially the same issues and parties.” (See Pltf.’s Exhibit, 3/7/2013 Settlement
Officer Decision on Reparations.) The first claim, Docket Number 1920(I), was dismissed and
became final on March 22, 2013, when the Commission did not exercise its right to review the
decision within thirty days under 46 C.F.R. § 502.304(g). (See Pltf.’s Exhibit, 3/7/2013
3
Settlement Officer Decision on Petition for Reconsideration.) The time to appeal that decision
expired prior to plaintiff’s filing the present complaint on August 2, 2013. 1 The second claim,
Docket Number 1921(I) for which Mr. Adenariwo was awarded reparations of $18,308.94, is not
yet a final order because the Commission is still reviewing the case. The Hobbs Act only
permits the review of “final orders” and therefore no federal court is able to review the case at
this time. See Blue Ridge Envtl. Def. League v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 668 F.3d 747, 753
(D.C. Cir. 2012) (“Finality under the Hobbs Act is to be narrowly construed[;] ... [a]n order is
final if it imposes an obligation, denies a right, or fixes some legal relationship, usually at the
consummation of an administrative process.” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing jurisdictional reasons, defendant’s Motion is granted. A separate Order
accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
/s/
ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE
United States District Judge
Date: November 26, 2013
1
Plaintiff had sixty days from March 22, 2013 to appeal Docket Number 1920(I) to the Court of Appeals. Plaintiff
did not bring such an appeal by May 22, 2013 as was required by 28 U.S.C. § 2344. Instead, plaintiff filed the
present complaint on August 2, 2013.
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?