The opinion of the court was delivered by: TENNEY
The plaintiff, William Ziegler ("Ziegler"), brought this action against the defendants seeking compensation for the loss of certain accessories and fittings, which the plaintiff claims were lost or stolen from his yacht while it was in the care, custody and control of the defendants. Saybrook Marine Service ("Saybrook"), one of the defendants, now moves to dismiss the action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 12(b), claiming that the Court lacks subject matter and personal jurisdiction.
Saybrook also contends that the action should be dismissed because the plaintiff brought the action in the wrong venue.
For the reasons set forth briefly below, the Court concludes that there is admiralty jurisdiction over the plaintiff's contract claims and the Court will exercise ancillary jurisdiction over the plaintiff's negligence claims. The Court also concludes that the proper venue for this action is Connecticut, and, therefore, directs that the case be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.
1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
The plaintiff contends that the instant action is within the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333, because the claim arose out of a maritime contract.
The Court agrees.
The plaintiff claims that the defendants agreed to take custody of and care for his boat. Specifically the plaintiff argue that he "arranged for defendants . . . to care for, service, transport and harbor his yacht, the 'GEM.'" Affidavit in Opposition, at 1. The plaintiff's complaint, fairly read, essentially alleges that the defendants contracted to either dock or store the plaintiff's yacht.
Admiralty jurisdiction over contract claims is determined by reference to the nature and subject of the contract. See Ford Motor Co. v. Wallenius Lines, 476 F. Supp. 1362, 1365 (E.D. Va. 1979). Schuster v. Baltimore Boat Sales, Inc., 471 F. Supp. 321, 322 (D. Md. 1979). The crucial question is whether the relevant agreement has a "maritime flavor." Ford v. Wallenius, 476 F. Supp. at 1366.
It is well established that contracts for service or repair of vessels are maritime in nature. See Schuster v. Baltimore, 471 F. Supp. at 322; Fireman's Fund American Ins. Co. v. Boston Harbor Marina, Inc., 285 F. Supp. 36, 39 (D. Mass. 1968), rev'd on other grounds, 406 F.2d 917 (1st Cir. 1979); Leyendecker v. Cooper, 1978 A.M.C. 1544, 1546 (D. Md. 1978). Recent cases have also held that contracts for seasonal storage of a vessel are maritime in nature and provide a sufficient basis for finding admiralty jurisdiction. See, e.g., Omaha Indemnity Co. v. Whaleneck Harbor Marina, Inc., 610 F. Supp. 154, 156 (E.D.N.Y. 1985); Medema v. Gombo's Marina Corp., 97 F.R.D. 14, 15 (N.D. Ill. 1982); American Eastern Dev. Corp. v. Everglades Marina, Inc., 608 F.2d 123, 124 (5th Cir. 1979); Schuster v. Baltimore, 471 F. Supp. at 322. These courts reasoned that storage contracts were similar to contracts for repairing a vessel. See Omaha Indem. v. Whaleneck, 610 F. Supp. at 155-56. In Everglades Marina, the court noted that storage contracts are also similar to contracts involving docking and wharfage. See 608 F.2d at 124; see also Selame Assoc., Inc. v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 451 F. Supp. 412, 418 (D. Mass. 1978) ("A contract to provide wharfage or storage is a maritime contract and a breach of this contract is cognizable in admiralty.").
The Court agrees that it is appropriate to consider storage contracts as being maritime contracts. Storing a vessel may increase or preserve the vessel's seaworthiness, and, therefore, a storage contract has a direct connection with navigation.
In the instant case, it is not clear from the papers whether the parties agreed that the boat would be kept on land or in the water. The result is the same, however, in light of the cases and reasoning set forth above. There is a strong maritime flavor to the agreement at issue here, and the plaintiff's yacht was not removed from navigation as a result of the agreement.
Indeed, it appears that the purpose of the agreement was to ensure that the yacht would be available and in reasonable condition when the plaintiff wished to use it.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that there is admiralty jurisdiction in the instant case, and the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied. Because the negligence claims being asserted arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts as the contract claims, the Court will exercise ancillary jurisdiction over the negligence claims. See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 16 L. Ed. 2d 218, 86 S. Ct. 1130 (1966).
2. Personal Jurisdiction and Venue
In federal admiralty practice, personal jurisdiction and venue analyses merge so that venue is proper in any district in which valid service of process may be had on the defendant. See Ingersoll Milling Machine Co. v. J.E. Bernard & Co., 508 F. Supp. 907, 909 (N.D. Ill. 1981); Gipromer v. S.S. Tempo, 487 F. Supp. 631, 633 (S.D.N.Y. 1980); Societe Commerciale de Transports Transatlantiques v. S.S. "African Mercury", 366 F. Supp. 1347, 1349 (S.D.N.Y. 1973). The question of whether a non-domiciliary defendant is ...