into for a profit of USD 81,000. Therefore, a claim for the breach of that FFA is not a maritime claim, and the Court lacks federal maritime jurisdiction to enforce a foreign judgment for breach of that contract. This action must be dismissed for lack of maritime jurisdiction. 30. Because the action must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the Court does not reach the request for a default judgment and the successor-in-interest/alter-ego issues raised by the plaintiff. CONCLUSION The case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing this case. The Clerk is also directed to close all pending motions and to close the case. SO ORDERED. 1 . Kirby held that bills of lading for the transportation of cargo from a port in Au , 49 (2d Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Folksamerica, 413 F.3d at 315 (holding
holding noncompete nondisclosure and lease contract agreements were maritime contracts when used in the context of employment aboard an exploration vessel holding even though idaho law does not permit the enforcement of noncompete clauses in employment contracts erisa statutes allow forfeiture of pension benefits in excess of erisas minimum vesting requirements in noncompete clauses holding that standard noncompete nondisclosure and lease contracts were still maritime contracts because of nature and character and connection to maritime commercial venture holding that mandatory arbitration agreements in the employment context fall under the faa holding that noncompete provisions survived the expiration of an employment agreement where 1 the contract expressly provided that the provisions would continue to apply if the employee continued working and 2 the noncompete clause expressly stated it would continue to be in effect after the expiration or termination of employment