See M/V Islander, 751 F.2d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 1984) (ship neither grounded nor stranded); Lay v. Hixson, 905 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1260 (S.D. Ala. 2012) (same); Phelan v. Minges, 170 F. Supp. 826, 828 (D. Mass. 1959) (same). At best, Defendant refers to Fine, 895 F. Supp at 310 and Neptune Maritime Co. of Monrovia v. Vessel Essi Camilla, 562 F. Supp. 14, 24–25 (E.D. Va. 1982), but these cases are also materially distinguishable from the facts and issues here. In Fine, the court's contra marine peril finding rested on the now discarded Klein requirement that a successful salvor must have acted "in a situation of maritime peril from which [the vessel] could not have been rescued without [the salvor's] help."
Id.; B.V. Bureau Wijsmuller v. United States, 702 F.2d 333, 338 (2d Cir. 1983); McConnochie v. Kerr, 9 F. 50, 53 (S.D.N Y 1881). If the vessel has the situation under control such that there is no "reasonable apprehension for her safety in the future if left to her own unaided efforts," then there is an absence of peril. The J.C. Pfluger, 109 F. 93, 95-96 (N.D.Cal. 1901); Neptune Maritime Co. of Monrovia v. Vessel Essi Camilla, 562 F. Supp. 14, 25 (E.D.Va. 1982), aff'd 714 F.2d 132 (4th Cir. 1983); Clifford v. M/V Islander, 751 F.2d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 1984). The existence of maritime peril is a necessary element for a valid salvage claim.
The party claiming salvage bears the burden of proving that the services were performed at a time when the MAYA and the APEX CHICAGO were in an imminent marine peril which could destroy them. Clifford v. M/V Islander, 751 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1984); Neptune Maritime Co. v. Vessel Essi Camilla, 562 F. Supp. 14, 24 (E.D.Va. 1982), aff'd, 714 F.2d 132 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court concludes that the services of the JAGUAR were towage, rather than salvage.