SMS Yacht Maintenance v. 210 Super Pleasure Vessel, et al
Filing
30
ORDER Denying 17 Defendants' Motion to Vacate. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 12/27/2012. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(srm)(jrd)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
SMS YACHT MAINTENANCE,
Plaintiff,
10
11
12
13
CASE NO. 12-CV-2038-IEG (NLS)
ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
VACATE
vs.
ONE NAUTIQUE 210 PLEASURE
VESSEL, in rem; and SEAN OVERSMITH,
in personam,
[Doc. No. 17]
Defendants.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to vacate the Court’s August 22, 2012 order
issuing a warrant of arrest in rem. [Doc. No. 17.] For the reasons below, Defendants’ motion is
DENIED.
BACKGROUND
In January 2012, Plaintiff and Defendant in personam Sean Oversmith entered into an
agreement for the repair of Defendant in rem One Nautique 210 Super Pleasure Vessel, CA. Reg.
No. CF 6000 PZ, Hull No. CTC37477C303 (the “Vessel”). [See Doc. Nos. 1 at 2 (complaint); 172 at 2-3 (Oversmith Declaration in Support of Motion to Vacate).] A dispute over payment arose,
and, on August 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking to foreclose an alleged maritime lien
for the provision of necessaries to the Vessel. [See Doc. Nos. 1 at 2-3;17-2 at 3-6.] On August 21,
2012, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for a warrant to arrest the Vessel, which the Court granted
on August 22, 2012. [See Doc. Nos. 3, 6.] The United States Marshal Service effected arrest on
August 24, 2012. [Doc. No. 8.] On October 10, 2012, Defendants filed the present motion to
vacate the issued arrest warrant. [Doc. No. 17.] Plaintiff filed an opposition, [Doc. No. 21], and
-1-
12cv2038
Defendant filed a reply, [Doc. No. 25].
1
2
DISCUSSION
Motions to vacate pursuant to Rule E(4)(f) afford an opportunity to challenge a vessel’s
3
arrest and burden Plaintiff “to show why the arrest [] should not be vacated.” Fed. R. Civ. P.,
4
Supp. R. E(4)(f). The purpose of such motions “is not ‘to resolve definitively the dispute between
5
the parties, but to make a preliminary determination whether there were reasonable grounds for
6
issuing the arrest warrant.’” Sea Prestigio, LLC v. M/Y Triton, 2010 WL 5376255, at *1 (S.D. Cal.
7
Dec. 22, 2010) (quoting Lion de Mer v. M/V Loretta, 1998 WL 307077 (D. Md. Apr. 3, 1998)).
8
Thus, Plaintiff “isn’t required to prove its case just to defeat the motion to vacate.” Equatorial
9
Marine Fuel Management Services Pte Ltd. v. MISC Berhad, 591 F.3d 1208, 1211 (9th Cir. 2010).
10
Rather, to defeat such a motion, “plaintiff merely needs to show probable cause for the issuance of
11
the warrant,” which “translates roughly to requiring plaintiff to show entitlement to a maritime
12
lien.” Sea Prestigio, 2010 WL 5376255, at *1. Plaintiff may show entitlement to a maritime lien
13
by “demonstrat[ing] that he (1) provided necessaries (2) to a vessel (3) on the order of the owner.”
14
Venture Packers, Inc. v. F/V JEANINE KATHLEEN, 305 F.3d 913, 917 (9th Cir. 2002); see also
15
Trans-Tec Asia v.M/V HARMONY CONTAINER, 518 F.3d 1120, 1127 (9th Cir. 2008) (“a person
16
providing necessaries to a vessel on the order of the owner . . . has a maritime lien on the vessel.”).
17
Here, Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff provided necessaries to the Vessel on order
18
of the Vessel’s owner. [See, e.g., Doc. Nos. 17-1 at 2 (Defendant’s Memorandum) (“Oversmith
19
authorized the repairs . . .”); 17-2 at 2-3 (Oversmith Declaration) (same).] Instead, Defendants
20
asserts an array of factual arguments as to the extent of necessaries agreed to, the terms of the
21
purported contract, and whether Plaintiff overcharged for the necessaries in fact provided. [See,
22
e.g., Doc. No. 17-1 at 9-12 (contesting, inter alia, the necessity of storage charges and market
23
value of the repairs provided).] While such arguments may be probative of the value of the
24
repairs provided or even the scope and amount of the purported lien itself, they do not undermine
25
the lien’s existence or Plaintiff’s entitlement thereto. See Sea Prestigio, 2010 WL 5376255, at *1;
26
see also Puerto Rico Ports Authority v. BARGE KATY-B, 427 F.3d 93, 103 (1st Cir. 2005) (“A
27
person who supplies ‘necessaries’ to a vessel automatically obtains a maritime lien against the
28
vessel for the value of the goods or services supplied.”). On the present motion, Plaintiff need
-2-
12cv2038
only show entitlement to a maritime lien on the Vessel and need not resolve disputed facts as to its
1
scope. Del Mar Seafoods Inc. v. Cohen, 2007 WL 2385114, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2007)
2
(“The purpose of [] Rule E(4)(f) . . . is not to resolve [] factual disputes, but rather to assess
3
whether plaintiff’s showing [of entitlement to a maritime lien] rises to the level of probable
4
cause.”). Notwithstanding the ancillary factual disputes raised by Defendants, it remains
5
undisputed that Plaintiff indeed supplied necessaries to the Vessel on order of Defendant
6
Oversmith, the Vessel’s owner. See supra. These undisputed facts suffice to support probable
7
cause for entitled to the alleged maritime lien and thus for the arrest warrant’s issuance. See
8
Trans-Tec Asia, 518 F.3d at 1127. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to vacate is DENIED.
9
10
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
December 27, 2012
______________________________
IRMA E. GONZALEZ
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
12cv2038
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?