## Facts

- Manouchehr Monazzami Taghadomi (a U.S. citizen) and his wife, Nahid Davoodabadi (an Iranian citizen), rented a kayak while on honeymoon in Maui.
- The kayak encountered harsh wind and waves; Nahid was thrown overboard, was attacked by a shark, and died.
- Taghadomi reached an island and remained stranded for three days before rescue; he was hospitalized for several days.
- While the couple was in distress, a land witness called the Coast Guard Maui office with the kayak’s description and location.
- The Maui office relayed the report to the Coast Guard Operations Center in Honolulu, which directed a Coast Guard cutter, the Kiska, to search.
- The Kiska conducted a brief search, but the Coast Guard called off the search around 7:00 p.m. due to darkness.
- Survivors sued the United States for wrongful death and emotional distress, alleging negligence in conducting the rescue and in failing to contact local authorities with better rescue capabilities.

## Issues

1. Whether negligence-based maritime claims arising from Coast Guard search-and-rescue operations may proceed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, or are governed exclusively by the Suits in Admiralty Act and/or the Public Vessels Act.
2. Whether the Public Vessels Act’s foreign-national reciprocity requirement bars claims by Iranian plaintiffs based on conduct of a Coast Guard cutter.
3. Whether other negligence theories are barred by the Suits in Admiralty Act/Public Vessels Act limitations period, and whether plaintiffs may use the FTCA to avoid those statutory limits.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the United States.
- The court held the claims were maritime tort claims and therefore fell within the SAA/PVA remedial scheme, which is exclusive where it applies.
- Claims based on the Coast Guard cutter’s search were governed by the PVA and were barred as to the Iranian plaintiffs for failure to satisfy the PVA reciprocity requirement.
- Remaining negligence theories fell within the SAA/PVA framework and were time-barred under the admiralty statutes’ limitations period.
- The FTCA could not be used to circumvent the SAA/PVA’s conditions and limitations.

## Legal Principles

- Maritime tort claims against the United States arising from incidents on navigable waters and involving Coast Guard rescue operations are governed by federal admiralty jurisdiction.
- When the SAA and/or PVA applies, it provides the exclusive avenue to sue the United States for the covered maritime tort; the FTCA is displaced.
- The PVA bars suits by foreign nationals unless the reciprocity requirement is satisfied (i.e., the foreign state permits similar suits by U.S. citizens).
- SAA/PVA statutory time limits are conditions on the United States’ waiver of sovereign immunity; plaintiffs may not invoke the FTCA’s differing rules to avoid those limits.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit treated the survivors’ claims as maritime tort claims governed exclusively by the SAA/PVA, not the FTCA, and held the action could not proceed because PVA reciprocity barred the Iranian plaintiffs’ public-vessel claim and the remaining theories were untimely under the admiralty statutes.


Taghadomi v. United States, 401 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2005)