Shelter Cove Marina, LTD. v. M/Y Isabella
Filing
23
ORDER Granting 20 Motion for Interlocutory Vessel Sale and Authorization to Credit Bid. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 11/29/17. (dlg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
SHELTER COVE MARINA, LTD., a
California Limited Partnership,
15
16
17
18
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
INTERLOCUTORY VESSEL SALE
AND AUTHORIZATION TO
CREDIT BID
Plaintiff,
13
14
Case No.: 3:17-cv-01578-GPC-BLM
v.
M/Y ISABELLA, U.S.C.G. Official No.
1192004, an 81.6-Foot, 1952 Feadship
Motor Yacht, AND ALL OF HER
ENGINES, TACKLES, ACCESSORIES,
EQUIPMENT, FURNISHINGS AND
APPURTENANCES, in rem,
[ECF No. 20]
Defendant.
19
20
21
Before the Court is Plaintiff Shelter Cove Marina’s (“Shelter Cove”) motion for
22
interlocutory vessel sale and authorization to credit bid. (ECF No. 20.) The motion is
23
unopposed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Shelter Cove’s motion.
24
25
I.
Background
This is an in rem action against the vessel S/V Isabella, U.S.C.G. Official Number
26
1192004 (“Defendant Vessel”), which is—according to the verified complaint—owned
27
by Ocean Bay Charters, LLC. (ECF No. 1 at 2 ¶ 3.) The President of Ocean Bay
28
Charters is Tom Kelley. (Id.) On September 15, 2015, Kelley executed a wharfage
1
3:17-cv-01578-GPC-BLM
1
contract with Shelter Cove. (Id. at 2 ¶ 5.) Under the agreement, Shelter Cove provided
2
wharfage services for Defendant Vessel. (Id.) Since November 2016, however, no one
3
has paid the accruing wharfage fees resulting from Shelter Cove’s services to Defendant
4
Vessel. (Id. at 2 ¶ 6.) On February 21, 2017, Shelter Cove sent a letter to Kelley
5
demanding payment and threatening to cancel the contract; no payment was offered in
6
response, and as a result, Shelter Cove terminated the contract. (Id. at 3 ¶¶ 7–8.) At the
7
time Shelter Cove filed its complaint, the account for Defendant Vessel stood in arrears
8
by as much as $37,209.88. (Id. at 3 ¶ 10.)
9
In light of this nonpayment, Shelter Cove filed this action on August 4, 2017,
10
asserting claims of breach of a maritime contract, trespass, and quantum meruit. (See
11
generally id.) On August 14, 2017, the Court authorized the arrest of Defendant Vessel
12
and substituted Shelter Cove as custodian. (ECF No. 5.) Because no pleadings were
13
filed in response to Shelter Cove’s complaint, and upon Shelter Cove’s motion, the Clerk
14
of Court entered default against Defendant Vessel on October 18, 2017. (ECF No. 19.)
15
In the pending motion, Shelter Cove asks the Court to order the United States
16
Marshal Service to sell Defendant Vessel at public auction so as to satisfy Shelter Cove’s
17
maritime liens resulting from Defendant Vessel’s account arrearage. Shelter Cove also
18
seeks authorization to credit bid on Defendant Vessel.
19
II.
Legal Standards
20
“The interlocutory sale of a vessel is not a deprivation of property but rather a
21
necessary substitution of the proceeds of the sale, with all of the constitutional safeguards
22
necessitated by the in rem process.” Cal. Yacht Marina—Chula Vista, LLC v. S/V
23
OPILY, No. 14-cv-1215-BAS-BGS, 2015 WL 1197540, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2015)
24
(quoting Ferrous Fin. Servs. Co. v. O/S Arctic Producer, 567 F. Supp. 400, 401 (W.D.
25
Wash. 1983)). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental Rule for Certain
26
Admiralty and Maritime Claims E(9)(a)(i) states:
27
28
On the application of a party, . . . the court may order all or part of the
property sold—with the sales proceeds, or as much as will satisfy the
2
3:17-cv-01578-GPC-BLM
1
2
3
4
judgment, paid into court to await further orders of the court—if: (A) the
attached or arrested property is perishable, or liable to deterioration, decay,
or injury by being detained in custody pending the action; (B) the expense of
keeping the property is excessive of disproportionate; or (C) there is an
unreasonable delay in securing release of the property.
5
As indicated by the disjunctive nature of Rule E(9)(a)(i), Shelter Cove need show just
6
one of these criteria to obtain an interlocutory sale. See Cal. Yacht Marina—Chula Vista,
7
2105 WL 1197540, at *2.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
As for Shelter Cove’s request for authorization to submit a credit bid, this Court’s
Local Civil Rule E.1(e)(2) states:
When the court determines on the merits that a plaintiff or plaintiff in
intervention has a valid claim senior in priority to all other parties, that
plaintiff in intervention foreclosing a properly recorded and endorsed
preferred mortgage on, or other valid security interest in the vessel may bid,
without payment of cash, certified check or cashier’s check, up to the total
amount of the secured indebtedness as established by affidavit filed and
served on all other parties no later than seven (7) days prior to the date of
sale.
III.
Discussion
17
A. Interlocutory Sale of Defendant Vessel
18
i. Liability to Deterioration
19
Shelter Cove contends that the Court should grant the interlocutory sale of
20
Defendant Vessel because the vessel’s condition is deteriorating by sitting idle.
21
Shelter Cove offers the declaration of Ray Jones, a professional yacht broker, who
22
states that the inevitable deterioration of a vessel “is exacerbated when vessels (as
23
in this case) sit idle for extended periods in a salt water environment.” (ECF No.
24
20-3 at 2 ¶ 2.) “[W]hile an arrested vessel sits idle, her engines, generators and
25
other equipment are not operated under load (if at all), and . . . such disuse can
26
detrimentally impact the condition and value of such vessel.” (Id.) After
27
reviewing pictures of Defendant Vessel, Jones asserts that he “believe[s] that if
28
[Defendant Vessel] is permitted to lay idle without routine maintenance and
3
3:17-cv-01578-GPC-BLM
1
without proper lay-up preparations, the vessel’s engines might (even if now
2
operational) rust and freeze up, necessitating costly overhaul.” (Id. at 2 ¶ 3.)
3
According to Jones, the longer Defendant Vessel sits idle, “the greater the
4
deterioration will be,” and as a result, “in the interest of preserving the value of the
5
Defendant Vessel, she should be sold as soon as possible.” (Id.)
In light of Jones’s analysis—the veracity of which the Court has no reason to
6
7
doubt—the Court finds that Defendant Vessel is liable to deterioration or injury if
8
it remains arrested during the pendency of this action. See Cal. Yacht Marina—
9
Chula Vista, 2015 WL 1197540, at *3.
10
ii. Unreasonable Delay in Securing Release
11
Under Supplemental Admiralty Rule E(4)(f), a person claiming an interest in
12
arrested property is entitled to a prompt hearing. But, as Shelter Cove notes, in this case
13
“no person or entity has answered or otherwise responded to the Verified Complaint,
14
posted or sought to post security for the release of the Defendant Vessel, or requested a
15
prompt hearing” under Rule E(4)(f). (ECF No. 20-2 at 6.) As a result, the Court agrees
16
with Shelter Cove that there is little chance anyone will, at this point, seek to secure the
17
release of Defendant Vessel. (See id.)
Before granting an interlocutory sale, however, the Court must permit “defendants
18
19
sufficient time to provide a bond to secure the vessel’s release.” Cal. Yacht Marina—
20
Chula Vista, 2015 WL 1197540, at *4. The Court finds that sufficient time for anyone
21
with an interest in Defendant Vessel to provide such a bond has passed. This Court
22
issued the order granting the arrest of Defendant Vessel on August 14, 2017 (ECF No. 5),
23
and the warrant was returned executed on August 18 (ECF No. 7). Nearly four months
24
have now passed since Defendant Vessel’s arrest. Courts in this circuit have found four
25
months to be adequate in this context. See, e.g., Vineyard Bank v. M/Y Elizabeth I, No.
26
08-cv-2044, 2009 WL 799304, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2009). The Court therefore
27
finds that there has been an unreasonable delay in securing Defendant Vessel’s release.
28
//
4
3:17-cv-01578-GPC-BLM
1
iii. Excessive or Disproportionate Maintenance Expense
2
Shelter Cove also asserts that maintaining Defendant Vessel imposes
3
excessive and disproportionate expense. “Maintenance expenses of several
4
thousand dollars per month, particularly where a defendant has made no attempt to
5
answer the complaint or secure the vessel’s release, are excessive and
6
disproportionate.” Cal. Yacht Marina—Chula Vista, 2015 WL 1197540, at *4.
7
That is the case here. Jones states in his declaration that Defendant Vessel’s fair
8
market will not exceed $62,500. (ECF No. 20-3 at 2 ¶ 4.) In light of the Court’s
9
setting a rate of $243 per day1 compensation for maintenance services, the
10
substitute custodian fees to date since Defendant Vessel was arrested exceed
11
$18,000. (See ECF No. 20-2 at 8.) Assuming Jones’s valuation is correct, the
12
maintenance expenses so far amount to almost 30 percent of Defendant Vessel’s
13
total value. (See id. at 8.) In light of the fact that these expenses will continue, and
14
there is no reason to believe Defendant Vessel will increase in value in the future,
15
the Court finds that the maintenance expenses are excessive and disproportionate
16
to Defendant Vessel’s value. Cf. Cal. Yacht Marina—Chula Vista, 2015 WL
17
1197540, at *4; Vineyard Bank, 2009 WL 799304, at *2.
18
B. Credit Bid
19
According to Shelter Cove, no party other than Shelter Cove has asserted a
20
maritime lien claim against Defendant Vessel. (ECF No. 20-2 at 9.) As the only
21
claimant, Shelter Cove is therefore the senior-most claimant, and is entitled, under Local
22
Admiralty Rule E.1(e)(2), to bid an amount up to its lien amount. Shelter Cove’s lien
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
It appears that in its August 14, 2017 order, the Court miscalculated the services fees applicable for
Shelter Cove’s care of Defendant Vessel. After setting respective rates of $2.50 and $0.50 per foot of
the vessel length for wharfage and custodial services, the Court erroneously indicated that Defendant
Vessel was 87 feet, and therefore calculated the wharfage and custodial fees to be $217.50 and $43.50
per day. (ECF No. 5 at 8.) Defendant Vessel is, however, 81 feet. (ECF No. 1 at 2 ¶ 3.) As a result, the
appropriate wharfage service fee is $202.50 per day ($2.50 x 81 feet = $202.50), and custodial service
fee $40.50 per day ($0.50 x 81 feet = $40.50). Together, these fees add up to $243.00 per day.
5
3:17-cv-01578-GPC-BLM
1
consists of the $37,209.88 arrearage attested to in its verified complaint (ECF No. 1 at 3 ¶
2
10), plus “actual and demonstrable costs of suit, including U.S. Marshal, substitute
3
custodian and other custodia legis expenses” as specified by this Court’s August 14
4
order, “to be calculated through the date of the vessel sale” (ECF No. 20-2 at 10). Shelter
5
Cove does not request to include in its credit bid its attorneys’ fees. (Id.)
6
Provided that Shelter Cove complies with Local Admiralty Rule E.1(e)(2) by
7
establishing the total amount of the secured indebtedness by affidavit, and filing
8
and serving on all other parties such an affidavit no later than seven (7) days prior
9
to the date of the sale, the Court GRANTS Shelter Cove authority to credit bid at
10
11
12
13
14
the auction of Defendant Vessel.
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, Shelter Cove’s motion for interlocutory sale and
authorization to credit bid (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
15
1. Consistent with Supplemental Admiralty Rule E(9)(B) and Local Admiralty Rule
16
E.1(e) the United States Marshal be and hereby is directed and empowered to sell
17
said DEFENDANT VESSEL and her engines, tackle, accessories, equipment,
18
furnishings and appurtenances, as is, where is, at public sale at the first available
19
time and date, after having first caused notice of said sale to be published daily in a
20
newspaper of general circulation within the City of San Diego, California for at
21
least seven days immediately before the date of sale;
22
23
2. Such public notice specify the date, time and location for the sale of the
DEFENDANT VESSEL;
24
3. Consistent with Local Admiralty Rule E.1(e)(2), such public notice specify that the
25
last and highest bidder at the sale will be required to deposit with the U.S. Marshal
26
a certified check or a cashier’s check in the amount of the full purchase price not to
27
exceed $500, and otherwise $500 or ten percent (10%) of the bid, whichever is
28
greater, and that the balance, if any, of the purchase price shall be paid by certified
6
3:17-cv-01578-GPC-BLM
1
check or cashier’s check before confirmation of the sale or within three days of
2
dismissal of any opposition which may have been filed, exclusive of Saturdays,
3
Sundays and legal holidays;
4
4. Any proceeds of said sale shall be held by it or deposited by the United States
5
Marshal in the Registry of this Court, pending further Order of this Court;
6
5. Shelter Cove, having a secured maritime lien interest in the Defendant Vessel
7
pursuant to the Commercial Instruments and Federal Maritime Lien Act (46 U.S.C.
8
section 31301, et seq.) and being the only claimant in this action asserting a
9
maritime claim against her, is authorized pursuant to Local Admiralty Rule
10
E.1(e)(2) to credit bid at the auction of the DEFENDANT VESSEL, without
11
payment of cash, a sum equal to its secured interest in the Defendant Vessel,
12
consisting of the lien amount specified in Shelter Cove’s Verified Complaint
13
($37,209.88), plus its actual costs of suit through the date of the sale, including
14
U.S. Marshal and other custodia legis expenses, with such costs and expenses to be
15
calculated at the rates specified and authorized in the Order Appointing Substitute
16
Custodian and Authorizing Movement of Defendant Vessel. However, as
17
Plaintiff’s maritime necessaries lien interest in the DEFENDANT VESSEL does
18
not, as a matter of law, include attorneys’ fees, such fees are not to be included in
19
any credit bid Plaintiff makes; and
20
6. Pursuant to Local Supplemental Admiralty Rule E.1(e)(2), that if within three days
21
of the auction date, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, no written
22
objection is filed, the sale shall stand confirmed as of course, without the necessity
23
of any affirmative action thereon by a judge, except that no sale shall stand
24
confirmed until the buyer has complied fully with the terms of the purchase.
25
26
27
28
7
3:17-cv-01578-GPC-BLM
1
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 29, 2017
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
3:17-cv-01578-GPC-BLM
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?