Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-3648 SECTION "B"(1)
04-27-2018
ERGON-ST. JAMES, INC. v. M/V SHANDONG FU EN, IN REM
ORDER
Considering the "Uncontested Motion for Leave to File Intervention" (Rec. Doc. 13) filed by Crescent Towing & Salvage Co., Inc. and Cooper/T. Smith Mooring Co., Inc. ("Applicants"), and the fact that Plaintiff Ergon-St. James, Inc. does not oppose the motion to intervene,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion (Rec. Doc. 13) is GRANTED. The proposed pleading and verification (Rec. Docs. 13-1; 13-2) attached to the motion shall be filed into the record.
A party who asserts a maritime lien against an arrested vessel must "advance[] [its claim] by intervention under Civil Rule 24, as it may be supplemented by local admiralty rules." Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Adm. & Mar. Cls. C(6) advisory committee's note to 2000 amendment; see also Effjohn Int'l Cruise Holdings, Inc. v. A&L Sales, Inc., 346 F.3d 552, 560 (5th Cir. 2003); Martin Energy Servs., LLC v. M/V BOURBON PETREL, No. 14-2986, 2015 WL 2354217, at *4-6 (E.D. La. May 14, 2015). Under Rule 24(a), intervention as of right is warranted when: "(1) the motion is timely; (2) the putative intervenor asserts an interest related to the property or transaction that forms the basis of the controversy in the action into which he seeks to intervene; (3) the disposition of the action may impair or impede his ability to protect that interest; and (4) it is not adequately represented by the existing parties." Effjohn, 346 F.3d at 560.
Applicants' motion to intervene is timely. The Local Admiralty Rules state that a motion to intervene "may be untimely if not filed within" twenty-one days of publication of notice that the vessel has been arrested. See LAR 64.1. The vessel at issue was arrested on April 6, 2018, so notice of its seizure was published no earlier than that date. See Rec. Doc. 10. The instant motion to intervene was filed on April 26, 2018. See Rec. Doc. 13. Therefore the motion was filed within the time period provided by the Local Admiralty Rules.
Applicants' motion also satisfies the remaining requirements for intervention. See Banc One Capital Bid Co. 1998 LLC v. Genesis Offshore, LLC, No. 10-1288, 2011 WL 925731, at *1 (W.D. La. Mar. 14, 2011) (granting timely motion to intervene to assert maritime lien against vessel); Asamarbunkers Consultadoria e Paricipacoes Unipessoal Lda v. United States, No. 1:10CV223, 2010 WL 11470878, at *1 (E.D. Tex. May 5, 2010) (same). Each Applicant alleges a maritime lien against the vessel from providing docking, undocking, and linesmen/mooring services. See Rec. Doc. 13-1 at 2; 46 U.S.C. §§ 31301, 31342. Release of the vessel will impair Applicants' ability to assert their maritime liens, which should be asserted in the instant proceeding against the vessel. See X-Drill Holdings, Inc. v. Jack-Up Drilling Rig SE 83, 320 F.R.D. 444, 449 (S.D. Tex. 2017); see Asamarbunkers, 2010 WL 11470878, at *1. Nor will Plaintiff Ergon-St. James, Inc. protect Applicants' interests because Plaintiff's lien is independent and competing; Plaintiff's lien could be resolved without addressing Applicants' liens. See X-Drill Holdings, 320 F.R.D. at 449-50.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 27th day of April, 2018.
/s/_________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE