Seafarer Exploration Corp (SFRX)

[hedge_fun]

I have heard Kyle and Huffman argue that…….

merchant ships were exempt and Spain would not have a strong legal claim because the Concepcion was not a warship.

It’s noteworthy in GME’s case with France, the ruling made no distinction. It was France’s property…….PERIOD. The Military Shipwreck Act was not mentioned.

Also noteworthy, The Baer was a witness for GME while deBry was a witness for France. Regardless if they find the wreck that isn’t there, Spain will simply say thank you for finding our property. We’ll take it from here.

What a great business model.

8. Finding.
Based on the above evidence, the Court concludes that the res is la Trinité . The res is located near Cape Canaveral, which is where la Trinité is known to have sunk. The shipwreck site includes cannons that correspond to the artillery register of la Trinité . And la Trinité was known to be carrying a stone monument similar to the monument found at the shipwreck site. Taken together, these facts establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the res is la Trinité. See also Delgado Dec., Doc. No. 75-16 ¶ 56-58 (opining that the res is la Trinité ). GME has not come forward with sufficient evidence to undermine this conclusion. Instead, GME and its experts rely for the most part on speculation: Maybe some unnamed non-French ship somehow gained control of cannons like those on la Trinité and a territorial monument like that on la Trinité and then happened to sink in the exact place that la Trinité is known to have sunk—all without leaving any documentary evidence that can be presented to the Court. Such arguments, "which simply advance metaphysical doubt," "propos[e] explanations other than the obvious," and suggest pure happenstance as the "more reasonable hypothesis" are not persuasive. See Odyssey Marine District Court , 675 F.Supp.2d at 1134, 1135 (quotation omitted).

Because the Court has concluded that the res is la Trinité and it is undisputed that la Trinité is the sovereign property of the Republic of France, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the res. Therefore, the Republic of France's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is due to be granted.

III. STATE OF FLORIDA'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DAUBERT MOTION.
Throughout this litigation, the State of Florida has supported the Republic of France's claim to the res and has postured its claim to the res as subordinate to the Republic of France's claim. Doc. No. 35. Thus, because the Court has concluded that the res is a sovereign ship of the Republic of France and that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the res , the State of Florida's claim to the res (and its Daubert and partial summary judgment motions) becomes moot. Moreover, even if the State of Florida's claim and the motions were not moot, the Court would lack subject matter jurisdiction to rule on them. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the State of Florida's claim to the res (Doc. No. 35) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and direct the Clerk of Court to terminate the State of Florida's Daubert (Doc. No. 96) and partial summary judgment (Doc. No. 97) motions.

IV. CONCLUSION.
For the reasons stated above, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. The Republic of France's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 75) is GRANTED .

2. GME's complaint (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

3. The warrant of arrest (Doc. No. 13) is VACATED .

4. The Republic of France's claim (Doc. No. 26) and the State of Florida's alternative claim to the res (Doc. No. 35) are DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

5. The substitute custodian (the State of Florida) is ORDERED to return the res to the Republic of France within fourteen days from the date of this Order under such circumstances and in such a manner as agreed to by the Republic of France and the State of Florida, unless the Republic of France agrees in writing that the State of Florida may retain the artifacts under conditions specified in the agreement.

6. My previous Order prohibiting recovery activity on the res (Doc. No. 46) is modified and it is ORDERED that the Republic of France and those acting on its behalf may begin recovery of the res .

7. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE all pending motions (including the State of Florida's Daubert motion (Doc. No. 96) and its partial summary judgment motion (Doc. No. 97) and, thereafter, to close the case.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on June 29, 2018.

https://casetext.com/case/global-marine-exploration-inc-v-unidentified-wrecked-for-finders-right-purposes-abandoned-sailing-vessel