Opinion
24-cv-1303-BAS-DDL
07-30-2024
MARINE GROUP BOAT WORKS, LLC Plaintiff, v. F/V HEATHER, Defendant.
ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT FOR ARREST OF DEFENDANT VESSEL (ECF NO. 3); AND (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF SUBSTITUTE CUSTODIAN AND MOVEMENT OF DEFENDANT VESSEL (ECF NO. 4)
Hon. Cynthia Bashant United States District Judge
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Marine Group Boat Works, LLC's applications for issuance of a warrant for the arrest of Defendant vessel F/V Heather (ECF No. 3) and for appointment of substitute custodian and authorization to move Defendant vessel (ECF No. 4). These applications are made ex parte. For the reasons herein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motions. (ECF Nos. 3, 4.)
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Marine Group Boat Works, LLC is a boatyard located in Chula Vista, California. (Compl., ECF No. 1 at ¶ 2.) Defendant F/V Heather is a 73.6-foot commercial fishing vessel owned and operated by Atlantic Pacific Tuna, Inc. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-4.) Peter Grillo (“Grillo”) is an agent for this entity. (Id. at ¶ 4.) In October 2023, Grillo signed a contract with Plaintiff to do certain work on the Defendant vessel including hauling her and applying antifouling paint. In November and December 2023, Grillo signed an additional contract for Plaintiff to repair parts of the Defendant vessel including sections of the hull. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-7.) According to Plaintiff, Grillo then remitted payment for some but not all of the services Plaintiff performed. Plaintiff contends Grillo and the Defendant vessel owe a remaining $90,165.29 for services rendered. (Compl. at ¶ 12.)
On July 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed an action before this Court against Defendant for breach of a maritime contract of necessaries and for quantum meruit. On July 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motions seeking to authorize issuance of a warrant for arrest of the Defendant vessel (ECF No. 3) and appointment of a substitute custodian and movement of the Defendant vessel (ECF No. 4). These motions are made ex parte.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The U.S. Constitution provides that federal courts have jurisdiction in “all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction.” U.S. Const. Art. III § 2. Congress codified this judicial power into a statute vesting federal courts with exclusive jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1).
The Maritime Lien Act, 42 U.S.C. § 31342, governs claims brought against vessels for unpaid liens. “Maritime liens arise for the unpaid provision of necessaries, breaches of maritime contracts, unpaid seaman's wages, unpaid cargo freight, preferred ship mortgages, as well as in other circumstances.” Ventura Packers, Inc. v. F/V Jeanine Kathleen, 305 F.3d 913, 919 (9th Cir. 2005). The Maritime Lien Act provides:
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person providing necessaries to a vessel on the order of the owner or a person authorized by the
owner-
(1) has a maritime lien on the vessel;
(2) may bring a civil action in rem to enforce the lien; and
(3) is not required to allege or prove in the action that credit was given to the vessel.
(b) This section does not apply to a public vessel.Necessaries are defined as “repairs, supplies, towage, and the use of a dry dock or marine railway,” 46 U.S.C. § 31301(4), but courts interpret this term broadly as anything that facilitates or enables a vehicle to perform its operations. Ventura Packers, 305 F.3d at 923. The holder of a maritime lien has “the right to proceed in rem directly against the vessel” that is the cause of the financial loss according to the legal fiction that the ship itself caused the loss. See Chugach Timber Corp. v. N. Stevedoring & Handling Corp., 23 F.3d 241, 245 (9th Cir. 1994). This right exists even if there is no maritime contract between the plaintiff and the vessel at issue. See Ventura Packers, 305 F.3d at 920.
To initiate a suit in rem against a vessel, the plaintiff “must file a verified complaint that describes the vessel ‘with reasonable particularity' and states that the vessel ‘is within the district' or will be so ‘while the action is pending.'” Barnes v. Sea Hawaii Rafting, LLC, 889 F.3d 517, 529 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. Supp. Adm. & Mar. Cl. R. C). When these requirements are met, the federal district court is empowered “to issue an order directing the clerk to issue a warrant for the arrest of the vessel . . . that is the subject of the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. Supp. Adm. & Mar. Cl. R. C. This is done by issuing an arrest warrant to be served by the marshal. Barnes, 889 F.3d at 529. “After the vessel is arrested, the owner is entitled to ‘a prompt post-seizure hearing at which he can attack the verified complaint, the arrest, the security demanded, or any other alleged deficiency in the proceedings up to that point.'” Id. at 531 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. Supp. Adm. & Mar. Cl. R. E).
III. ANALYSIS
A. Ex Parte Application for Arrest Warrant
Rule C of the Supplemental Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule C”) allows an in rem be brought to enforce any maritime lien when a federal statute provides for a maritime action in rem. Fed.R.Civ.P. Supp. Adm. & Mar. Cl. R. C. When “the conditions for an in rem action appear to exist, the court must issue an order directing the clerk to issue a warrant for the arrest of the vessel or other property that is the subject of the action.” Id. This rule envisions an arrest warrant will issue upon a “prima face showing” that the plaintiff has an action in rem against the defendant and that the property is within the district. See Cahuenga Assocs. II v. S/V MAKO, 256 F.Supp.3d 1092, 1095 (S.D. Cal. 2017).
Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of Rule C. Plaintiff describes the Defendant with reasonable particularity including its measurements and ownership. (Compl. at ¶¶ 34.) Plaintiff alleges it hauled Defendant, applied antifouling paint, removed and repaired a section of the hull, and aided in providing welding work to Defendant. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-8.) These are necessaries under the Maritime Lien Act. See 46 U.S.C. § 31301(4). Plaintiff alleges Grillo wired some money in fulfillment of Defendant's payment obligations but that a sum of $90,165.29 remains due. (Id. at ¶¶ 9-12.) As follows, Plaintiff has alleged it has a lien on the Defendant vessel.
Plaintiff further alleges, under information and belief, the Defendant vessel is engaged in fishing operations outside the jurisdiction of the Southern District of California. (ECF No. 3 at ¶ 4.) Plaintiff alleges, however, the Defendant vessel will return to the Southern District of California to unload its cargo of fish while this action is pending. (Id.)
Plaintiff has therefore met its obligations under Rule C. See Barnes, 889 F.3d at 529. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request to issue a warrant is granted.
B. Ex Parte Motion to Substitute Custodian
Ordinarily, once the warrant for arrest of a vessel issues, the U.S. Marshal Service will seize the vessel. However, the Southern District of California's Local Civil Rule E.1(2) provides that:
On motion of any party, made after notice to the marshal and all parties who have appeared, a judge may order that custody of the vessel be given to the operator of a marina or similar facility, repair yard, or company regularly carrying on the business of ship's agent, if a judge finds that such firm or person can and will safely keep the vessel and has in effect adequate insurance to cover liability for failure to do so.The Rule also contemplates moving the arrested vessel:
If the vessel must be moved to the place where custody will be maintained, a judge may also require insurance or other security to protect those having an interest in the vessel, as well as those claiming against her, from loss of damage to the res, liability of the vessel, incurred during movement. The order allowing such custody must fix fees to be charged therefor and for any other services to be rendered the vessel and must provide for their payment to the marshal in advance.Plaintiff Marine Group Boat Works, LLC moves to appoint itself the custodian of the Defendant vessel for the duration of the litigation pursuant to Local Civil Rule E.1. (ECF No. 4.)
The Court is satisfied that Plaintiff is able to safely harbor the Defendant vessel during these proceedings. According to the declaration of Todd Roberts, the president of Marine Group Boat Works, LLC, Plaintiff is one of the best known and established boatyards in the San Diego area. (ECF No. 4-1 at ¶ 2.) Plaintiff employs dozens of persons experienced with boat maintenance, restoration, and damage control. (Id. at ¶ 3.) The boatyard is fully fenced and secured during non-work hours. (ECF No. 4 at ¶ 6.) Plaintiff maintains insurance including a commercial general liability policy, an umbrella policy, and a vessel pollution liability policy. (Id. at ¶ 8.)
Plaintiff declares it will provide wharfage and custodial services including periodic inspections of mooring lines and daily visual inspection of the exterior at a rate of $3 per foot of vessel length per day. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Plaintiff will memorialize the condition of Defendant vessel's interior and exterior at a cost of $200. (Id.) Plaintiff will conduct weekly inspections of the vessel to check for watertight integrity, excessive bilge water, and fuel lubricant leaks at a rate of $250 per inspection. (ECF No. 4 at ¶ 6.)
Based on these representations, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff will act as a capable custodian for the Defendant vessel. The Court therefore grants its motion for appointment as custodian of the vessel. (ECF No. 4.)
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's application for issuance of a warrant for the arrest of Defendant vessel F/V Heather. (ECF No. 3.) It is therefore ORDERED:
1. The immediate issuance of a warrant for the arrest of the Defendant vessel F/V Heather, U.S.C.G. Official No. 609985, a 73.6-foot commercial fishing vessel and all of her engines, tackle, accessories, equipment, furnishings and appurtenances (the “Defendant Vessel”) is authorized;
2. The Clerk of the District Court shall immediately prepare a warrant for the arrest of the Defendant Vessel and shall deliver it to the U.S. Marshal for the Southern District of California for service;
3. Any person claiming an interest in the Defendant Vessel shall be entitled upon request to a prompt hearing, at which Plaintiff shall be required to show why the arrest should not be vacated or other relief granted consistent with the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims;
4. Plaintiff Marine Group Boat Works, LLC must comply with the notice provisions as outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Supplement Admiralty Rule C and Local Civ. R. C.1(b); and
5. A copy of this order is to be attached to and served with the warrant for arrest.Moreover, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's application for appointment of a substitute custodian and authorization for movement of Defendant vessel. (ECF No. 4.) It is therefore ORDERED:
1. The United States Marshal for the Southern District be, and is hereby, authorized and directed upon seizure of the Defendant Vessel, her engines, boilers, tackle, apparel, furnishings, appurtenances, etc., and all other necessaries thereunto appertaining and belonging, pursuant to Warrant for Arrest to be issued by the Clerk of this Court pursuant to Order of the Court, to surrender the possession thereof to Marine Group Boat Works, LLC named herein, and that upon such surrender the U.S. Marshal shall be discharged from its duties and responsibilities for the safekeeping of the Defendant Vessel and held harmless from and against any and all claims whatever arising out of said substituted possession and safekeeping;
2. Marine Group Boat Works, LLC be and is hereby appointed the substitute custodian of said Defendant Vessel, to retain the same in its custody at its Chula Vista shipyard, for possession and safekeeping for the aforementioned compensation and in accordance with the Declaration of Todd Roberts and the recitals herein contained until further Order of this Court;
3. Marine Group Boat Works, LLC shall provide the following services for the safekeeping of the Defendant Vessel at a cost not to exceed the costs outlined in its submission to the Court:
A. As soon as possible after assuming custody of the Defendant Vessel, Marine Group Boat Works, LLC must photograph or videotape her interior and exterior.
B. Provide vessel monitoring services. Periodically inspect mooring lines and fenders to assure safe mooring. Periodically inspect the vessel for watertight integrity, excessive bilge water, and fuel lubricant leaks.
C. Provide wharfage services and electricity if needed;
4. Marine Group Boat Works, LLC must not sell the Defendant Vessel. Marine Group Boat Works, LLC must not release the vessel or allow anyone aboard except in an emergency. If Marine Group Boat Works, LLC thinks further action is necessary for safekeeping beyond the instructions in this Order, Marine Group Boat Works, LLC shall seek an appropriate order from the Court; and
5. Plaintiff's attorney will serve a copy of this Order on the Defendant Vessel's owner or apparent owner, and on all known maritime lien claimants and/or others with a known or suspected interest in the Defendant Vessel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.