Skip to main content

Maritime Law--Lozman Case Revisited in Miami?

In Hoefling v. City of Miami, Case no.: 14-12482 (11th Cir. Jan. 25, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit revived almost all of Hoefling's claims. You ask, "Who is Hoefling?" Hoefling  lived on his sailboat Metis O moored off Dinner Key for nearly a decade—until the day he came home and it was gone. About three months earlier, an officer from the Miami Police Department's Marine Patrol Detail tagged Hoefling's vessel for lacking a sanitary device and a working anchor light. He had a deal to use the facilities at the nearby marina but quickly went out and reportedly bought what he needed to comply. Three months later while he was on a business trip, the City of Miami seized and destroyed his boat and all his belongings. As a result, he was homeless. He sued under § 1983, maritime law, and state law. He stated a claim under the Fourth Amendment for seizure and destruction without notice or cause and a “taking.” 
At the U.S. District Court level, the case was before Judge Joan Lenard. Judge Lenard dismissed the case before discovery with prejudice. Some reports suggested she tried to "trash" Hoefling's lawsuit. For example, the DBR suggested that Judge Lenard was familiar with the city side of civil rights suits, since her husband, Howard Lenard, former city attorney for North Miami Beach, is general counsel to the Miami-Dade County League of Cities. Miami is one of its 34 municipal members. Nevertheless, in her May 6, 2014, order granting defendants' motion to dismiss, Lenard relied heavily on the incident reports filed by the two Marine Patrol officers or on their behalf. Judge Lenard accused the Plaintiff of "attempt[ing] to pull the wool over the court's eyes" by dropping Marine Patrol incident reports she found credible but Hoefling said were fabricated.

Judge Adalberto Jordan U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit

Hoefling appealed. The opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit was written by Judge Adalberto Jordan. Judge Jordan found that "[a]fter a review of the record, and with the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the district court got some things right and some things wrong." The appellate court remanded the case to the trial court and directed the trial court to avoid "accepting as true the contents of the incident reports."
This case is reminiscent of the case of Lozman v. The City of Riviera Beach. Lozman kept his floating home in a marina in the City of Riviera Beach, where he signed a lease with the city, moored the floating home to the dock, and affixed the home to land based utilities. Later, the city council passed a revised dockage agreement and accompanying Marina Rules--some argued--to force Lozman and other "undesirables" out of the marina. Pursuant to these rules, the city informed Lozman it would revoke his permission to remain on the marina unless he executed a new agreement and complied with the new regulations. Lozman did not execute a new agreement and continued to remain at the marina. The city first filed a lawsuit in state court, which failed. The city then filed an in rem suit in federal court for trespass under federal maritime law and ultimately, destroyed Lozman's floating home.

The question becomes, "Are cities utilizing their police powers and/or the general maritime laws of the U.S. to remove what they consider derelict and unconforming vessels and other items floating in their waters?" You be the judge.  Some say these are two clear examples of this.

If you are interested in receiving a copy of the Hoefling decision or wish to contact me, you may do so by writing to me at


  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  3. Hi, This is a good post, indeed a great job. You must have done good research for the work, i appreciate your efforts.. Looking for more updates from your side. Thanks American International Shipping

  4. I definitely appreciate your blog. Excellent work!


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maritime Law--U.S. Crewmember Required to Arbitrate Claims Applying Norwegian Law

In Alberts v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 15-14775 (11th Cir. Aug. 23, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a U.S. citizen, working aboard a Royal Caribbean cruise ship is required to arbitrate his claims against Royal Caribbean.
Plaintiff, a United States citizen, worked as the lead trumpeter on a passenger Royal Caribbean cruise ship. The ship is a Bahamian flagged vessel with a home port in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Royal Caribbean, the operator of the vessel, is a Liberian corporation with its principal place of business in Florida. After plaintiff became ill while working for Royal Caribbean, he filed suit alleging unseaworthiness, negligence, negligence under the Jones Act, maintenance and cure, and seaman’s wages and penalties. Royal Caribbean moved to compel arbitration, and the district court granted the motion. This appeal presented an issue of first impression: Whether a seaman’s work in international waters on a cruise ship that calls o…

Maritime Law--Tour Boat Captain Implicated in Tragedy Off Nicaragua

As reported in the Daily Business Review on January 25, 2016, Nicaragua's police, army and navy will investigate the captain of a tourist boat and his assistant for the deaths of 13 Costa Rican passengers killed on January 23rd when the vessel capsized in bad weather. The Reina del Caribe, Spanish for "Caribbean Queen," was carrying 33 people when it went down Saturday amid rain and strong winds as it ferried between the Corn Islands, a popular tourist destination, off Nicaragua's Caribbean coast. The Daily Business Review article can be accessed here=> Daily Business Review article.

The government clarified on the 24th that the boat was carrying 25 Costa Ricans, two Americans, two British citizens, a Brazilian and three Nicaraguans. Previous reports had said there were 32 people on board, including four Americans. All the dead were Costa Ricans.

Nicaragua's naval commander for the southern Caribbean region said the boat's captain was detained because the …

Maritime Law--Lawsuits Filed Over RCCL's "Storm Cruise"

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd ("RCCL") faces lawsuits by passengers accusing the company of negligently endangering their lives by letting Anthem of the Seas sail into a February 7, 2016 storm.  One class action lawsuit filed in federal court in Miami specifically states that RCCL should be required to pay punitive damages to passengers on its ship for "knowingly sailing directly into" a strong winter storm with 120-mph winds. It is also alleged that people aboard the ship were "subjected to hours of sheer terror as the gigantic cruise ship was battered by hurricane-force winds and more than 30-foot waves."

The vessel reportedly encountered 100 mph winds and 30-foot waves, and RCCL said the storm was more severe than expected. RCCL later turned the ship around, and it returned to New Jersey on February 10. Anthem of the Seas’ port azipod reportedly burnt through “all four clutches” during the storm. RCCL reported four minor injuries among more than 6,000 p…