ING Bank N.V. v. BULK FINLAND M/V

Filing 46

ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that Bomin Bunker Oil Corp.'s 34 Motion to Stay is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties 29 , 30 Motions for Summary Judgment are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above cap tioned action shall be administratively closed, for statistical purposes only, without prejudice to the parties' right to reopen the case upon motion to lift the stay within thirty (30) days after the resolution of NuStar Energy Services, Inc. v. M/V COSCO AUCKLAND (Case No. 17-20246). FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE SUCH MOTION MAY LEAD TO SANCTIONS, INCLUDING DISMISSAL. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 6/28/2017. (Reference: All Cases)(mmv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ING BANK N.V., ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-5975
C/W 15-6060
ALL CASES

M/V BULK FINLAND, IMO No. 9691577

SECTION "B"(3)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the court is “Bomin Bunker Oil Corp.’s Motion to Stay”
(Rec. Doc. 34), “Memorandum in Opposition to Bomin Bunker Oil
Corp.’s Motion to Stay” (Rec. Doc. 37), “Drylog Bulkcarriers
Limited’s Response to Bomin Bunker Oil Corp.’s Motion to Stay”
(Rec. Doc. 36), “Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss Verified
Complaint of Bomin Bunker Oil Corp.” (Rec. Doc. 29), “Bomin Bunker
Oil Corp.’s Response to Opposition to ING Bank N.V.’s Motion for
Summary Judgment to Dismiss Verified Complaint” (Rec. Doc. 33),
“Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment to
Dismiss Verified Complaint of Bomin Bunker Oil Corp.” (Rec. Doc.
45), “Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss Bomin Bunker Oil
Corp.’s Claims” (Rec. Doc. 30) and “Bomin Bunker Oil Corp.’s
Response in Opposition to Drylog Bulkcarriers Limited’s Motion for
Summary Judgment to Dismiss Bomin Bunker Oil Corp.’s Claims” (Rec.
Doc. 42),
For the reasons set forth below, IT IS ORDERED that Bomin
Bunker Oil Corp.’s Motion to Stay (Rec. Doc. 34) is GRANTED. IT IS

1

FURTHER ORDERED that the parties Motions for Summary Judgment (Rec.
Docs. 29 and 30) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above captioned action shall
be administratively closed, for statistical purposes only, without
prejudice to the parties' right to reopen the case upon motion to
lift the stay within thirty (30) days after the resolution of
NuStar Energy Services, Inc. v. M/V COSCO AUCKLAND (Case No. 1720246). FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE SUCH MOTION MAY LEAD TO SANCTIONS,
INCLUDING DISMISSAL. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
The

instant

controversy

arises

from

a

vessel

seizure.

Plaintiff ING Bank N.V. (“ING”), it its Motion for Summary Judgment
contends Bomin Bunker Oil Corp.’s (“Bomin”) Verified Complaint
should

be

dismissed

because

it

cannot

satisfy

the

statutory

requirements to have a valid maritime lien or a breach of contract
claim against the vessel, BULK FINLAND, as a matter of law. ING
argues that Bomin as a matter of law cannot have a maritime lien
or a breach of a contract claim against BULK FINLAND because Bomin
is a subcontractor and not a person authorized by the vessel owner
to render services. Bomin argues that the law on maritime liens in
this context is not yet settled in this Circuit and that the
Motions for Summary Judgment should be held in abeyance pending
the resolution of an appeal involving similar factual and legal
issues in NuStar Energy Services, Inc. v. M/V COSCO AUCKLAND (Case
No.

17-20246)

which

was

filed
2

in

early

April

2017.

Drylog

Bulkcarriers Limited does not oppose the motion to stay the
proceedings (Rec. Doc. 36).
“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings
as incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v.
Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 684 (1997). However, a “stay is immoderate
and hence unlawful unless so framed in its inception that its force
will be spent within reasonable limits, so far at least as they
are susceptible of prevision and description.” Landis v. N. Am.
Co., 299 U.S. 248, 257 (1936). Furthermore, a “party requesting a
stay must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being
required to go forward if there is even a fair possibility that
the stay would harm another party.” Ates v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
Case No. 15-3228, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132926, at*7 (E.D. La.
Sept. 30, 2015). In the context of multi-district litigation
decisions the Court generally examines three factors:

(1) the

potential prejudice to the non-moving party (2) the hardship and
inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3)
the

judicial

resources

that

would

be

conserved

by

avoiding

duplicative litigation if the case was stayed. Ates, 2015 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 132926 at *8. This Court finds that an analysis of all
three factors weighs in favor of granting a stay pending the
resolution of the appellate court’s proceedings.
First, ING will have little potential prejudice if the stay
is granted. ING’s only foreseeable prejudice is a delay in the
3

resolution of its lawsuit. However, even if this Court denies the
stay and grants ING’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ING cannot
execute any funds in the near future as Bomin states that it will
appeal an adverse decision to the Fifth Circuit. ING will face a
delay in its economic recovery whether or not the stay is granted.
Furthermore, it would be unreasonable for the parties to
expend resources to join the appellate queue on maritime liens
legal questions when their case can be stayed, without incurring
additional costs, pending the outcome of NuStar Energy Services,
Inc. v. M/V COSCO AUCKLAND. Furthermore, if ING’s motion is denied
Bomin and ING will have to spend money and time undertaking
discovery and other pre-trial matters before eventually trying the
case and ending up in the same position at the Fifth Circuit.
Granting the stay will conserve both the Court’s and parties
resources. ING cites a litany of cases in its Motion for Summary
Judgment arguing that subcontractor lacks a maritime lien as a
matter of law in these sort of factual patterns. However all of
these cases are district court decisions that are pending appeal
in the Fifth, Second and Ninth Circuits (Rec. Docs. 29-1, 29-2 and
29-3). Granting a stay pending the resolution of one Fifth Circuit
case, NuStar Energy Services, Inc. v. M/V COSCO AUCKLAND (Case No.
17-20246), will conserve the Court’s resources and prevent the
parties

from

engaging

in

unnecessary

appeals

or

undertake

unnecessary discovery and pretrial actions. This Court uses its
4

broad discretion to stay proceedings in this case in the “interest
of justice.” E. Cornell Malone Corp. v. Sisters of the Holy Family,
922 F. Supp. 2d 550, 563 (E.D. La. Feb. 6, 2013).

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 28th day of June, 2017.

___________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5