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)

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