Valerie Shipping Inc. v. Korea Line Singapore PTE, Ltd.

Filing 98

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARINGS ON 49 MOTION to Shift Vessel, 71 MOTION for Order of Sale, 93 Application for Bid, and 52 MOTION to Pay Crew Wages, Repatriate the Crew and Provide for Monthly Submission of Costs and Objections. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 3, 2011. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 VALERIE SHIPPING, INC., Plaintiff, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C 11-00911 JSW v. 12 KOREA LINE SINGAPORE PTE, LTD., 13 NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARING Defendant. / 14 15 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE 16 NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE 17 HEARING SCHEDULED ON MAY 6, 2011, AT 9:00 A.M.: 18 The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does 19 not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to 20 rely on legal authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and 21 opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies 22 available at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED 23 to submit the citations to the authorities only, with pin cites and without argument or additional 24 briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral 25 argument to explain their reliance on such authority. The Court suggests that associates or of 26 counsel attorneys who are working on this case be permitted to address some or all of the 27 Court’s questions contained herein. 28 // 1 The Court tentatively grants the Motion to Shift Vessel, tentatively grants the motion 2 to pay wages, and tentatively grants the motion for interlocutory sale and the application for a 3 credit bid. Each party shall have fifteen (15) minutes to address the following questions: 4 5 Motion to Shift Vessel 1. In its motion to shift the vessel, National Maritime Services, Inc. (“Substitute 6 Custodian”) references a Declaration from James Tamulski, to which certificates of 7 insurance are attached. (Docket No. 49 (Motion to Shift Vessel, ¶ 12).) There is no 8 such declaration submitted in connection with the motion.1 Rather, the Substitute 9 Custodian submits a declaration from Bill O’Dell, in which Mr. O’Dell attests that the Substitute Custodian has obtained insurance. (Docket No. 50 (Declaration of Bill 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 O’Dell, ¶ 14).) Is the O’Dell declaration intended as a substitute for the Tamulski 12 declaration referenced in the motion to establish proof of insurance? 13 2. Ultragas International, S.A. (“Ultragas”) has filed a “Response to Motion, Request for 14 Clarification and Countermotion for Custodia Legis Expense,” in which it requests that 15 the Court order that “the value of Ultragas’ marine gas oil (“MGO”) consumed during 16 the pendency of the arrest/attachment be treated as a custodia legis expense in favor of 17 and payable to Ultragas.” (Docket No. 88 (“Ultragas Request” at 2:7-8).) Does 18 Ultragas oppose the motion to shift the vessel? 19 a. If so, on what basis? 20 b. If not, can the parties agree upon a revised proposed Order granting this motion? 21 Motion to Pay Crew Wages, Repatriate the Crew 22 and Provide for Monthly Submission of Costs and Objections 23 3. Do any of the parties contend that the Crew Members are not legally entitled to wages 24 incurred after this Court issued the warrant of arrest? See, e.g., Putnam v. Lower, 236 25 F.2d 561, 570 (“It is well settled that no maritime lien can be allowed to seamen for 26 wages accruing subsequent to the time the ship is taken into custodia legis....”). 27 28 1 The same is true for the Motion to Pay Crew wages. 2 1 4. The Crew Members do not object in principle to the motion, and have stated that they 2 would meet and confer with the Substitute Custodian and Valerie Shipping to attempt to 3 resolve the issue of payment of their wages. Have the parties come to an agreement on 4 these issues? 5 5. Valerie Shipping, Inc. (“Valerie Shipping”) opposes the motion on the basis that “the 6 court has not been provided with a proper accounting of the amounts owed pursuant to 7 the seamans contracts or the work actually preformed for the benefit of the res while the 8 vessel has been under arrest or attachment.” (Docket No. 85 (Opposition at 9:18-22).) 9 The Substitute Custodian filed an untimely reply2, and the Crew Members have replied to Valerie Shipping’s opposition. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 a. What are the Crew Members’ responses to Valerie Shipping’s objections. 12 b. What is Valerie Shipping’s response to the materials the Substitute Custodian 13 14 submits in its reply? 6. Is the Court correct that none of the parties object to the Substitute Custodian’s 15 procedure regarding submission of expenses and objections? 16 17 Motion for Interlocutory Sale 7. The Declaration of Elizabeth P. Beazley in support of the Motion for Interlocutory Sale 18 includes correspondence between Defendant Korea Line Shipping PTE, Ltd. 19 (“Defendant”) and the United States Marshall in Texas, with respect to the Blue 20 Emerald. Is there similar correspondence between Defendant and the Substitute 21 Custodian or the United States Marshal in the Northern District of California regarding 22 the Blue Jade, or did Plaintiff in Intervention, Nordea Bank Finland, PLC, Singapore 23 Branch (“Nordea”) intend to include the correspondence regarding the Blue Emerald as 24 evidence that Defendant also lacks the means to seek release of the Blue Jade? 25 8. Is the Court correct that Plaintiff does not oppose the motion for interlocutory sale? 26 27 28 The Court ordered that all replies would be due by 6:00 p.m. on May 2, 2011. (Docket No. 64.) 2 3 1 9. 2 3 oppose this application and, if so, on what basis? 10. 4 5 Nordea submitted its application for a credit bid on May 2, 2011. Does any party Does any party request that the Court set a minimum bid in connection with the interlocutory sale? 11. Have Nordea, Plaintiff and Ultragas resolved the issue with respect to the bunkers? 6 7 Concluding Questions 12. 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Would the parties consider consenting to a Magistrate Judge for all purposes for the remainder of the litigation? 13. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address? IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 3, 2011 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?