Barclay v. Fuller

Filing 63

JDR ORDER denying 53 Motion to Compel. Order signed by Judge John D. Roberts on 2/21/2013. (JAM, Chambers Staff)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

TIMOTHY R. BARCLAY,

3:11-cv-00169-TMB-JDR

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL

vs.
MARCUS M. FULLER, In
Personam,
and NISHA ex-SARAH NICOLE,
Official No. 589077, and its
engines, tackle, gear, equipment
and appurtenances, In Rem,

(Docket No. 53)

Defendants.

The Court has before it Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, And/Or Impose
Preliminary Injunction /And Declaration of Timothy Barclay. Docket 53. Defendant
filed an opposition at Docket 56 and Plaintiff filed a response at Docket 57. The
Court then ordered a settlement conference at Docket 54. However, the parties were
unable to reach a settlement. Docket 59. The Court subsequently adopted this
Court’s recommendation that Defendant’s request for an injunction against Plaintiff
be denied. For the reasons stated below, the Magistrate Judge hereby DENIES
Plaintiff’s motion.

Order Denying Motion [53] to Compel

In his motion, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to provide him
with proof of insurance. As a result, Plaintiff requested the following relief:
1. Impose a preliminary injunction, that, requires
Defendant Fuller provide the Court proof of insurance. Hull
and Machinery and Personal Injury for as many aboard
prior to engaging in any maritime activity or
accommodations to tenants, transients, employees or
contractors or ever leaving the harbor for leisure, hunting,
anything.
2. Disallow Defendant to allow liens on Vessel.
3. Disallow Defendant to convert equipment.
4. Disallow Defendant to sell Vessel.1
In his opposition, Defendant submitted proof that the Vessel was
insured at Docket 56, attach. 1. The letter from the insurance provider confirmed that
the Vessel’s policy included both “Hull & Machinery Insurance” and “Protection &
Indemnity” insurance. Id. The policy’s coverage began on August 3, 2012 and
expires on August 3, 2013. Id. In light of Defendant’s disclosure to the Court
concerning proof of insurance on the Vessel, this Court sees no reason why the
Defendant should be compelled to provide proof of insurance again. The issue is
moot.
The Plaintiff previously filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop
the Defendant from using the Vessel at Docket 3. That motion was later denied at
Docket 37. Defendant has since provided proof of insurance. Docket 56, attach. 1.

1

Docket 53, p. 2.

11-cv-169-TMB-JDR-Barclay @ Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion to Compel_mtd.wpd

Order Denying Motion [53] to Compel

2

Therefore, it would be improper for this court to issue a preliminary injunction
because there is no longer a reason for Defendant to produce proof of insurance.
Given that Defendant supplied proof of insurance, the Magistrate Judge
hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.
DATED this

21 day of February, 2013, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ John D. Roberts
JOHN D. ROBERTS
United States Magistrate Judge

11-cv-169-TMB-JDR-Barclay @ Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion to Compel_mtd.wpd

Order Denying Motion [53] to Compel

3