Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel

Filing 23

MOTION for preliminary injunction by Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Von Spiegelfeld, Allen) Modified on 8/8/2007 (jlh, ). TERMED; REFILED AT DOC 28

Download PDF
/: Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel Doc. 23 Case 8:07-cv-00614-SCB-MAP Document 23 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Tampa Division In Admiralty ODYSSEY MARINE EXPLORATION , INC. Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION Case No: 8:07-CV-00614-SCB-MAP THE UNIDENTIFIED, SHIPWRCKED VESSEL if any, its apparel, tackle, appurtenances and cargo located within a five mile radius of the center point coordinates provided to the Court under seal Defendant; in rem and The Kingdom of Spain Claimant and Defendant. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR .ORDER GRATING PRELIMINARY INJUCTIVE RELIEF Plaintiff, Odyssey Marne Exploration, Inc. (" Odyssey ), by its undersigned injunction temporarly counsel , hereby moves for entr of an Order granting a preliminar enjoining and prohibiting any third parties from conducting search and/or recovery operations or conducting activities that would disturb the Defendant Site in any maner or that would interfere with Odyssey s exclusive rights to recover the Defendant Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel if any, its apparel, tackle, appurtenances and cargo located within a five mile radius of the center Dockets.Justia.com Case 8:07-cv-00614-SCB-MAP Document 23 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 2 of 18 point coordinates of which have been provided to the Court under seal (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Site ). Plaintiff warants to the Court that it shall monitor evidence of activity coming within the related to the Defendant Site and give notice of the Order to any third part area of the Defendant Site. The grounds supporting this motion are set forth in the accompanymg memorandum of law, which is incorporated herein by reference. Respectfully submitted Dated: August 6, 2007 s/ Allen von Sviegelfeld Allen von Spiegelfeld - FBN 256803 avonsp fowlerwhite. com Eric C. Thiel- FBN 016267 ethiel fowlerwhite. com FOWLER WHITE BOGGS BANKER P. O. Box 1438 Tampa, Florida 33601 (813) 228-7411 Facsimile: (813) 229- 8313 Attorneys for Plaintiff Case 8:07-cv-00614-SCB-MAP Document 23 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 3 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Tampa Division In Admiralty ODYSSEY MARINE EXPLORATION, INC. Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION : Case No: 8:07-CV-00614-SCB-MAP THE UNIDENTIFIED, SHIPWRECKED VESSEL if any, its apparel, tackle, appurenances and cargo located within a five mile radius of the center point coordinates provided to the Court under seal Defendant; mrem and The Kingdom of Spain Claimant and Defendant. PLAINTIFF' OF LA WIN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR ORDER GRATING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIV RELIEF S MEMORADUM Plaintiff, Odyssey Marne Exploration, Inc. (" Odyssey ), by its undersigned counsel , respectfully submits this memorandum oflaw in support of its a preliminar injunction temporarily enjoining and or motion for entr of an Order granting prohibiting any third paries from conducting search and/or recovery operations conducting activities that would disturb the Defendant Site in any maner or that would interfere with Odyssey s exclusive rights to recover the Defendant Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, if any, its apparel, tackle, appurtenances and cargo located with a Case 8:07-cv-00614-SCB-MAP Document 23 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 4 of 18 five mile radius of the center point coordinates of which have been provided to the Court under seal (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Site BACKGROUND The Defendant Site rests on the sea floor in the Atlantic Ocean at a depth of approximately 1100 meters, beyond the terrtorial waters or contiguous zone of any s position is located within a five mile radius ofthe sovereign nation. The Defendant Site center point coordinates which have been provided to the Court under seal. Upon information and belief, no other salvor is currently working on the Defendant Site. Odyssey does not have any specific knowledge of any archaeological or salvage operations other than those by Odyssey which have been conducted on the Defendant Site or in the general area, and to the best of Odyssey s knowledge, no salvor has sought to protect an interest in the Defendant Site through an arest. Odyssey first located the Defendant Site in March, 2007 using sophisticated sonar and magnetometer equipment. At the time of filing of the initial Complaint , Odyssey had not discovered evidence of a ship, but based upon its research, it believed that the vessel associated with the wreck site was a nineteenth century ship. the time of fiing of this Amended Complaint, Odyssey stil has not recovered evidence which would confirm the existence of a paricular ship, or in fact, any ship at all. When Odyssey first fied the initial Complaint, it had surveyed the Defendant Site and had begu an archaeological pre-disturbance surey taking video and photographs in order to create a photomosaic image of the Defendant Site, using a surface-controlled remotely operated vehicle ("ROV"). Odyssey placed an array of 5 acoustic beacons on towers around the Defendant Site to provide navigational ," Case 8:07-cv-00614-SCB-MAP Document 23 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 5 of 18 information and precise positioning information. Odyssey has since completed the survey and the photomosaic image of the Defendant Site. Odyssey subsequently recovered additional arifacts Site which are undergoing conservation according to strct from the Defendant archaeological protocols. Odyssey has prepared a Preliminary Site Assessment (hereinafter PSA") regarding the Defendant Site and the artifacts recovered and wil present that to the Court under seal. Odyssey has filed a Motion for Protective Order which references the PSA and the need for assurance that the PSA wil be kept confidential prior to filing. Nothing recovered to of any third date from the subject Defendant Site confirms an interest in the arifacts pary including the Kingdom of Spain. Odyssey is prepared to release certain information from the PSA as directed by the Court to Claimant, Spain. When and if Odyssey discovers evidence which confirms that the Defendant Site is that of a paricular shipwreck , Odyssey wil properly give notice to any third pary with a potential interest. Odyssey s survey and recovery operation has been, and wil continue , conducted in accordance with all appropriate archaeological protocols and under the direction of an experienced nautical archaeologist. Odyssey, its agents and associates, have invested substantial time, money and effort in locating, surveying and photographing the Defendant Site, and in planning the archaeological recovery of the arifacts from the Defendant Site. Odyssey, its agents and associates, have been actively, voluntarly and successfully engaged in the process of reducing arifacts from the Defendant Site to the Plaintiffs exclusive custody, possession, dominion and control, as circumstances permit Case 8:07-cv-00614-SCB-MAP Document 23 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 6 of 18 and Odyssey has the present ability and intention to continue to do so during the pendency of this action. Odyssey s recovery of arifacts from this and other sites has been the subject of intense international media attention especially in Spain. Many Spansh media reports have been filled with inaccuracies including false claims that artifacts were recovered ilegally from Spanish terrtorial waters. As a result of the false reports, and despite Odyssey s continued assurance that no artifacts have been recovered anywhere near Spanish terrtorial waters, Odyssey became the subject of a criminal investigation in Spain. In fact, Odyssey became aware through the Spanish press that Spanish authorities would intercept and inspect Odyssey Explorer) s vessels (the Ocean Alert and the Odyssey ifthey attempted to depar Gibraltar where they were docked. Odyssey attorneys were denied access to the order, however, and were told that the order-was secret. " Odyssey s attempts to appear in its defense were unsuccessful. Thus, Odyssey prepared a Sworn Statement of Gregory P. Stem, Odyssey s Cofounder, explaining Odyssey s actions and the facts surrounding the arest, the recovery, and the subsequent claims and baseless detention of Odyssey s ships by Spain. (A copy of the Sworn Statement including all Exhibits was attached to the Amended Complaint). Despite the fact that Odyssey provided the Sworn Statement and further information regarding its recovery to Spanish officials, and despite the assurance of the Spansh criminal judge (Judge Juan Jose Navas Blanquez sitting in substitution of the Judge for the Number Thee First Instance and Preliminar Investigating Cour of La Linea de la Concepcion and distrct a different judge from the one who signed the original "secret order ), that Odyssey s vessels would not be boarded without the consent Case 8:07-cv-00614-SCB-MAP Document 23 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 7 of 18 ofthe Master or forcibly taken to a Spanish port, on July 12 2007 , while Odyssey was moving its vessel the Ocean Alert from Gibraltar, and while the vessel was in international waters, Spain boarded the vessel under protest from the Master and ilegally seized the vessel forcing it into the Spanish port of Algeciras. Having alerted the Spansh media to the boarding and seizure, Spanish authorities paraded the coastlne for photograph and video opportities. Ocean Alert along the Additionally, despite her protests officials seized the personal computer of one of Odyssey s attorneys, Marie Rogers, and illegally copied all attorney/client privileged information regarding Odyssey and other clients. As of the date of this Amended Complaint, the computer has been retued without the hard drive. The original hard drive and copy are retained in the custody of the cour. A formal complaint and request for the return of the hard drive and all copies taken has been made to the court and is currently pending decision by the Judge as to the legitimacy of the seizure of the laptop. Once in Algeciras, Odyssey s crew and attorneys were forced by the Spanish offcials to sit in the scalding sun for approximately seven hours without food or water or use of the restroom. Their passports were taken (but returned later that day) as were all of their electronic equipment (of which the hard drives have been removed and only the empty laptops returned). The Odyssey Explorer remains blockaded in Gibraltar by virte of the criminal order and threatened seizue by Spain. Odyssey s rights granted by this Cour to continue its recovery have been restricted by Spain, and Odyssey damages as a result of Spain s conduct are extensive. 11. STANDARD FOR GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF In this Circuit, the four requirements for awarding preliminar injunctive relief are: Case 8:07-cv-00614-SCB-MAP Document 23 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 8 of 18 (1) a substantial likelihood that the par requesting relief wil ultimately succeed on the merits; the par requesting relief wil suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued; (2) (3) that threatened injury to the moving part opposing par; and outweighs har to the (4) See Siegel v. Lepore, the injunction, if issued, wil not be adverse to the public interest. 234 F.3d 1163 (1Ith Cir. 2000); Haitian Refugee Center, Inc. Nelson 872 F.2d States v. 1555 , 1561-62 (11 791 F.2d 1450, th Cir. 1989), aff' (11 498 U. S. 479 (1991); United Alabama 1459 n. 10 th Cir. 1986), cert. denied 479 U. S. 1085 (1987). As set forth below, Odyssey satisfies each ofthese four requirements. Therefore , an award of a preliminar injunctive relief is appropriate in this matter. III. ARGUMENT There Is A Substantial Likelihood That Odyssey Wil Ultimately Succeed On The Merits Of Its Claims This is a salvage case involving admiralty and martime claims under the. law of salvage and the law of finds. Regardless of which legal theory is ultimately As a case involving an admiralty and martime claim, this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter pursuant to the Constitution ofthe United States III Section 2, Clause 1 28 U. C. 1333 , and Rule 9(h) of the Federal Rules of Aricle Civil Procedure. Claims arsing out of salvage operations are unquestionably within the v. See Treasure Salvors, Inc. Unidentifed, admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts. th Cir. 1981) (Treasure Wrecked and Abandoned Sailng Vessel 640 F.2d 560 566- 67 (5 Salvors III). Furthermore, U. S. admiralty courts unquestionably have jurisdiction to See adjudicate salvage claims based on salvage operations that occur on the high seas. Treasure Salvors 111 640 F.2d at 566-67 ("The subject matter jurisdiction thus granted is not limited to causes of action arsing from acts or occurences on the terrtorial waters of res within the United States. Treasure Salvors 1 569 F.2d at 334 ("the presence of the the distrct is not an absolute prerequisite to the court' s jurisdiction. ). It is common for Case 8:07-cv-00614-SCB-MAP Document 23 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 9 of 18 found to apply to the case, there is a substantial likelihood that Odyssey wil ultimately succeed on the merits of either or both of its claims or under its claim for equitable relief based on quantu meruit and unjust enrchment. There Is A Substantial Likelihood That Odyssey Wil Ultimately Succeed On The Merits Of Its Claim Under The Law Of Finds The martime law of finds gives title to a person who has reduced to possession an object which has been abandoned at sea. See Columbus-America Vessel Discovery Group v. The Unidentifed, Wrecked and Abandoned Sailng 974 F.2d 450 (4 th Cir. 1992), cert. denied 507 U. S. 1000 (1993). This doctrne has been consistently recognized in admiralty, and courts have awarded title to shipwrecks to the finder when warranted by the facts. See Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. The Unidentifed, Wrecked and Abandoned Sailng Vessel 569 F.2d 330, 337 (5 th Cir. 1978) (Treasure Wrecked Salvors I); Martha s Vineyard Scuba Headquarters, Inc. and Abandoned Vessel 833 F.2d 1059, 1065 (1 st Cir. 1987); v. The Unidentifed, Indian River Recovery . The CHINA 645 F. Supp. 141 (D. Del. 1986). A finding of abandonment may be inferred from all of the relevant facts and circumstances, and may be based on circumstantial evidence. Zych v. Unidentifed, Wrecked and Abandoned Vessel Believed to be the LADY ELGIN 755 F. Supp. 213 , 214 (N. D. Ill. 1991), aff' 960 F .2d 665 (7 th Cir. 1992). Under the facts ofthis case, there is a substantial likelihood that Odyssey wil be able to prove that the Defendant Site has S. admiralty cours to assert in rem jurisdiction over shipwrecks located in international See Marex v. Unidentifed waters and even within the terrtorial seas of foreign nations. 952 F. Supp. 825 828 (S.D. Ga. 1997); MS. Titanic, Wrecked and Abandoned Vessel Bemis Inc. v. The Wrecked and Abandoned Vessel 924 F. Supp. 714 (E.D. Va. 1996); aff' 99 F.3d 1129 (4 th Cir. 1996), S. Lusitania, 884 F. Supp. 1042 (E.D. Va. 1995), cert. denied 118 S. Ct. 1558 (1998). Case 8:07-cv-00614-SCB-MAP Document 23 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 10 of 18 been abandoned by its original owner. The Defendant Site is located beyond the terrtorial waters or contiguous zone of any sovereign nation. The Defendant Site has revealed no evidence which would confirm the existence of a paricular ship or of any ship at all. The arifacts recovered have similarly failed to provide evidence which would suggest anything other than an abandonment. In fact, it is possible that the artifacts were tossed overboard from a ship, as jettison. See (D. P. a 1806) (No. 13 Taylor v. The CATO 23 F. Cas. 752 , 753 786). Thus, the Court should find that the Defendant Site and the arifacts recovered have been abandoned and award title to Odyssey under the martime law of finds. There Is A Substantial Likelihood That Odyssey Wil Ultimately Succeed On The Merits Of Its Claim Under The Law Of Salvage The common law of salvage applies to propert that is lost at sea but has not been abandoned by its original owner. The law of salvage grants a liberal reward those who voluntarly engage in efforts to save a vessel in peril at sea, and it promotes the orderly recovery of such property. See The BLACKWALL 77 U. S. 1 (1869). It is well recognized that three elements must be established in order to present a salvage claim: (1) a marine peril from which the propert could rescued without the assistance of the salvor; not have been (2) service voluntarly rendered when not required as a pre-existing duty; and success , in whole or in par, of recovery of the imperilled propert. Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. (3) See The SABINE 101 U. S. 384 (1879); Wrecked and Abandoned Sailng Vessel The Unidentifed Nuestra Senora de Atocha 546 F. Supp. 919 Case 8:07-cv-00614-SCB-MAP Document 23 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 11 of 18 930 (S.D. Fla. 1981) 1974)). (citing Legnos v. MIW Olga Jacob 498 F.2d 666 669 (5 th Cir. Odyssey s activities with respect to the Defendant Site satisfy all three of these elements, and therefore is a salvage operation within the meaning ofthe law. The Defendant Site Is In Marne Peril A marne peril "includes more than the threat of storm, fire or piracy to a vessel in navigation. Treasure Salvors 1 569 F.2d at 337. The concept of marine peril also includes propert which is discovered after being long lost but is " stil in peril of being lost through actions of the elements. Id. See also Platoro Ltd., Inc. Unidentifed Remains 614 F.2d 1051 (5 th Cir. 1980); Barge NBC512 404 F.2d 137 , Fort Myers Shell Dredging Co. 139 (5 th Cir. 1968) (the "peril required in salvage service need not necessarly be one of imminent or absolute danger, either presently or reasonably to be apprehended. ). The Defendant Site is in danger from rival salvors who may attempt to locate it and recover remaining arifacts with " grab buckets " and without regard to archaeological protocols or proper conservation techniques. Thus, the Defendant Site satisfies the definition of marne peril because it is " stil in peril of being lost through actions ofthe elements. See Treasure Salvors 1 569 2d at 337. Odyssey Is Voluntarily Rendering Service When Not Required As A Pre- Existing Duty Odyssey is under no duty to recover the Defendant Site. Instead, it is voluntarly rendering service to rescue the Defendant Site from being lost forever through and the action of the elements in the sea from the possibility that the arifacts wil be hastily recovered by salvors without regard for the Defendant Site s historic and Case 8:07-cv-00614-SCB-MAP Document 23 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 12 of 18 archaeological value. Accordingly, Odyssey has satisfied the second element of a salvage claim. Odyssey Is Substantially Likely To Succeed, In Whole Or In Par, In Recovering The Imperiled Property Odyssey has already demonstrated that it is capable of finding, surveying and photographing a large wreck site beneath 1100 meters depth or deeper. Odyssey is ready, willing and able to continue its recovery operations. Moreover, Odyssey has the equipment , manpower and experience required to successfully complete archaeological recovery operations. Odyssey desires to search for and recover arifacts from the Defendant Site which may prove helpful in identifying a particular shipwreck. Odyssey has taken constrctive possession of the wreck site to the extent its age, depth and historical significance permit. Accordingly, Odyssey is substantially likely to succeed in recovering the imperiled propert, salvage claim. and it has satisfied the final element of a successful Any Assertion By Spain Or Any Other Potential Claimant That It Has Successfully Refused Salvage Would Be Irrelevant. Insofar as Spain may assert that it has properly refused salvage for all Spanish shipwreck-sites -- irrespective of their location, disposition, and character-Plaintiff would assert that such would be irrelevant with respect to the Defendant Site. As was already discussed, all curent evidence from the Defendant Site suggests that there is, in fact, no remains of a ship to be found. In fact, the cargo may have been voluntarly jettisoned. As the U. S. Supreme Court has held, in such circumstances Case 8:07-cv-00614-SCB-MAP Document 23 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 13 of 18 jettisoned propert is subject to a claim by a successful salvor, and no attempt at refusal of salvage would be valid. See The ELIZA LINES 199 U. S. 119, 133-34 (1905). In any law s strngent standard for an event , Claimant Spain could never satisfy the martime effective and proper refusal of salvage, insofar as (1) it is not in actual possession of the Defendant Site, (2) a prudent marner would not refuse salvage under circumstances such as this, (3) Plaintiff acted in good faith to recover propert propert; and (4) and investigated the origin of in any event, a pary purporting to disclaim salvage may only do so for Merritt its property and not for that owned by other paries. See Wrecking Co. v. United States, Chapman Derrick & 274 U. S. 611 , 613 (1927); Tidewater Salvage, Inc. Weyerhaeuser Co., 633 F.2d 1304 , 1307 (9th Cir.1980). Courts have made it a legal presumption that owners of propert lost at sea desire to have their property salvaged and the burden would necessarily rest on a party to conclusively prove that they had effectively refused salvage services. See S. Titanic, Inc. v. Haver 171 F.3d 943 , 963 (4th Cir. 1999). Defendant Site is Located Beyond the Terrtorial Sea or Contiguous Zone of any Nation. No nation may interfere with shipwreck recovery activities, unless such are occurng within that nation s terrtorial sea or contiguous zone. A nation s terrtorial sea is measured from the shoreline (or baselines along the coast) out to a maximum of 12 nautical miles. A nation s contiguous zone is (as the name implies) contiguous with a terrtorial sea, and extends out a maximum of an additional 12 nautical miles, making for a total maximum of 24 nautical miles. See (11 th Cir. United States v. Hidalgo-Gato, 703 F .2d 1267 1983). Even in a nation s contiguous zone, a coastal state s competence is Case 8:07-cv-00614-SCB-MAP Document 23 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 14 of 18 limited. See United States v. McRary, 665 F.2d 674, 677 n.4 (5 th Cir. Unit B 1982) ("the control of the United States over foreign boats in the contiguous zone is limited to the enforcement of customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitar regulations. The Defendant Site is not located within the terrtorial sea or contiguous zone of any nation. Plaintiffs have already filed with this Court, under seal, coordinates of the area in which the Defendant Site is located. Filed with this Motion, under seal, is a nautical chart depicting the location of the site described in the subject Amended Complaint. It is undisputed that the Defendant Site is not located within 24 nautical miles of any nation s coastline, and is thus not within any nation contiguous zone. s terrtorial sea or Odyssey Wil Suffer Irreparable Iniury IfIniunctive ReliefIs Not Issued Odyssey has expended considerable resources in locating, studying and surveying the Defendant Site, in photographing and documenting the Defendant Site, and in developing an archaeological excavation and conservation plan as well as in recovering the arifacts and in preserving their historical value. Odyssey has committed its financial resources, time, manpower, equipment and its vessels to these efforts. To allow others to come in at this time and reap the benefits of Odyssey s labor would constitute irreparable harm and injur remedy at law. to Odyssey for which there would be no adequate 546 F. Supp. at 929; Deep Sea Research, Inc. See Treasure Salvors The Brother Jonathan Cir. 1997), 883 F. Supp. 1343 , 1362 (N.D. Cal. 1995), aff' 102 F.3d 379 (9 aff' d in part, vacated in part and remanded 118 S. Ct. 144 (1998). As the Fifth Circuit explained in Treasure Salvors III: A salvor. . . has a valuable interest in his salvage operations which the law protects by vesting in the salvor certain Case 8:07-cv-00614-SCB-MAP Document 23 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 15 of 18 rights. Among the most important of these rights are the right to exclude others from paricipating in the salvage operations , so long as the original salvor appears ready, wiling and able to complete the salvage project, and the right to possession of the salved propert, a right exclusive even of the owner, until such time as the salvage lien on the propert is extinguished or adequate security for this obligation is given. 640 F.2d at 567. Odyssey risks violation of its legal rights and substantial investment to date if the Court does not award preliminar injunctive relief. Consequently, the Cour should enter a preliminar injunction protecting Odyssey s continued right to exclusive possession of the Defendant Site, and protecting it from interference from rival salvors. Odyssey s Potential Iniur Outweighs The Iniur Of Any Other Party Odyssey is the only par which has expended any resources in the search for and recovery of the Defendant Site. Further, the Defendant Site is located beyond the terrtorial waters or contiguous zone of any sovereign nation. There is no evidence currently which would confirm the interest of any third pary to the Defendant Site or to the arifacts rec(wered therefrom. Odyssey is not aware of any other par, inCluding fishermen , salvors, divers or others that may have discovered or recovered items from the Defendant Site, that has sought a salvage claim, or that has attempted to reduce the Defendant Site to its possession. Consequently, Odyssey s potential injury outweighs the injury of any other par, since Odyssey wil suffer serious irreparable injury if an injunction is not issued , and it is unlikely that any other part relief is awarded to Odyssey. wil suffer injury if preliminary injunctive Case 8:07-cv-00614-SCB-MAP Document 23 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 16 of 18 An Injunction Wil Not Be Adverse To The Public Interest Odyssey is committed to recovering the Defendant Site in a maner that benefits the public interest. The recovery operation and arifact preservation has been and will continue to be conducted in accordance with strct archaeological protocols. Furthermore , Odyssey intends to make certain of the recovered arifacts available for public display and educational purposes as well as historic and scientific study. Consequently, the issuance of an injunction wil not be adverse to the public interest. To the contrar, the issuance of a preliminar injunction permitting Odyssey to conduct a competent , safe, scientific and successful recovery of the Defendant Site can only benefit the public interest. See Treasure Salvors 546 F. Supp. at 929. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Odyssey respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion for entry of an Order granting a preliminar injunction temporarily enjoining and prohibiting any third paries from conducting search and/or recovery operations or conducting activities that would distub the Defendant Site in any maner or that would interfere with Odyssey s exclusive rights to salvage the Defendant Site within the areas described in the Complaint. Case 8:07-cv-00614-SCB-MAP Document 23 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 17 of 18 Respectfully submitted Dated: August 6, 2007 s/ Allen von Spiegelfeld Allen von Spiegelfeld - FBN 256803 avonsp~fowlerwhite. com Eric C. Thiel- FBN 016267 ethiel~fow lerwhite.com FOWLER WHITE BOGGS BANKER P. O. Box 1438 Tampa , Florida 33601 (813) 228-7411 Facsimile: (813) 229- 8313 Attorneys for Plaintiff Case 8:07-cv-00614-SCB-MAP Document 23 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 18 of 18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August , 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which wil send a notice of electronic filing to James A. Goold, Covington Burling LLP, 1201 Pennsylvania Ave. , NW, Washington, DC 20004, Attorneys for Claimant, Kingdom of Spain. s/ Allen von Spiegelfeld Allen von Spiegelfeld - FBN 256803 avonsp~fowlerwhite. com Eric C. Thiel- FBN 016267 ethiel~fowlerwhite. com FOWLER WHITE BOGGS BANKER P. O. Box 1438 Tampa , Florida 33601 (813) 228-7411 Facsimile: (813) 229- 8313 Attorneys for Plaintiff

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?