111 S.Ct. 1522, 113 L.Ed.2d 622 (1991); see also Schenck v. Kloster Cruise, Ltd., 800 F.Supp. 120, 122 (D.N.J.1992), aff'd, 993 F.2d 225 (3d Cir.1993); Vavoules v. Kloster Cruise Ltd., 822 F.Supp. 979, 982-83 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (stating that since 1946, “courts, without exception, have applied federal maritime law in cases involving passenger cruise tickets and other maritime contracts,” and citing examples). Since we conclude that this case sounds in admiralty, we apply federal admiralty law and not the law of New Jersey or any other state. That the District Court took this case under diversity jurisdiction, rather than admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333, does not affect this determination. See Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn, 346 U.S. 406, 410-11, 74 S.Ct. 202, 98 L.Ed. 143 (1953) (<HOLDING>); Edynak v. Atlantic Shipping, Inc., 562 F.2d
holding that courts apply substantive admiralty law to claims that sound in admiralty regardless of whether the complaint invokes diversity or admiralty jurisdiction holding that a complaint that asserts both admiralty jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction is not an adequate 9h designation to trigger admiralty procedures holding court must apply state law when admiralty law is inconclusive or incomplete holding that rule 4k2 does apply to admiralty cases holding that substantive admiralty law applies though suit was filed in federal court under diversity jurisdiction