on maritime commerce.” Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 534, 115 S.Ct. 1043, 130 L.Ed.2d 1024 (1995) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Second, a court must determine whether the general character of the activity giving rise to the incident shows a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The incident in dispute did not merely have the potential to disrupt maritime commerce; it definitely disrupted maritime commerce. According to the operative complaint, the Coast Guard ruined Plaintiffs’ commercial fishing trip and towed them and their boat hundreds of miles. Thus the first prong is easily met. See, e.g., Gruver v. Lesman Fisheries Inc., 489 F.3d 978, 982-83 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Taghadomi, 401 F.3d at 1086 (holding that
holding that a jetski injury met the second prong because the activity in question  operating a vessel in navigable waters  has a maritime connection holding that federal maritime law and not state law applies to all actions for wrongful death in navigable state waters holding that uniformity is as important in maritime survival actions as it is in maritime wrongful death actions holding that an assault on a seaman by his former maritime employer aboard a vessel in navigable waters had the potential to disrupt maritime commerce because it ren dered the seaman unable to fish holding 1 that a sick seaman who is forced to work because his former employer refuses to pay maintenance and cure is not required to set off his earnings against a maintenance and cure award and 2 that the seaman may recover attorneys fees as damages when the former employer unreasonably refuses to pay maintenance and cure