Essex Crane Rental Corp v. DB CROSSMAR 14, et al

Filing 53

ORDER AND REASONS granting 26 Motion for Order Noting Default; granting 27 Motion to Set Sale of Seized Vessel; dismissing as moot 46 Motion to Continue Sale; granting 49 Motion to Continue Requested Sale Date of Seized Vessel From October 17, 2016 to October 24, 2016. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 10/6/2016. (3ccUSM, NEF: Financial) (lag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ESSEX CRANE RENTAL CORP.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 16-8146

DB CROSSMAR 14, ET AL.

SECTION “B”(1)
ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court are Essex Crane Rental Corp.’s (“Essex” or
“Plaintiff”) “Motion for Order Noting Default” (Rec. Doc. 26),
“Motion to Set Sale of Seized Vessel” (Rec. Doc. 27), “Ex Parte
Motion to Continue Requested Sale Date of Seized Vessel from
October 3, 2016 to October 17, 2016” (Rec. Doc. 46), and “Second
Ex Parte Motion to Continue Requested Sale Date of Seized Vessel
From

October

17,

2016

to

October

24,

2016”

(Rec.

Doc.

49).

Defendant Cross Maritime, Inc. (“Cross Maritime” or “Defendant”),
timely filed an opposition memorandum to the motion to set sale of
the seized vessel. Rec. Doc. 28. The Court then granted leave for
Essex to file a reply memorandum. Rec. Docs. 30, 43, 44. For the
reasons discussed below,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for order noting default is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to set sale of the
seized vessel is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the first motion to continue the
sale (Rec. Doc. 46) is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the second motion to continue the
sale (Rec. Doc. 49) is GRANTED.
I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case arises out of the rental of a Manitowoc, 4100W-I,

230 Ton Lift Crane, Serial Number LC-M-41348 (the “Crane”) from
Essex to Defendant Cross Maritime, the purported owner of the DB
CROSSMAR 14, bearing Official Number 1025224, (the “Vessel”). Rec.
Doc. 1 at ¶ VI.1 Essex alleges that, pursuant to the rental
agreement dated January 2, 2008, the owner and operator of the
Vessel was provided the Crane and various services and/or personnel
in exchange for a monthly rental in the amount of $14,000.00. Id.
at ¶¶ VI-VII. The agreement further provides that the owner of the
Vessel is obligated to pay for the transportation of the Crane at
the agreed price of $18,000.00 and that the failure to pay invoices
when due entitles Essex to terminate the agreement, take possession
of the crane, recover rental amounts then due, recover damages,
costs, and disbursements (including attorney’s fees), and impose
a finance charge of 1.5% per month (18% per annum) for payments
that are past due. Id. at ¶¶ VIII-XI. Essex invoiced Cross Maritime
“in the amount of approximately $213,000 for Crane Rental through
Essex’s verified complaint avers that it entered into the rental agreement
with “Cross Group, as owner and operator of the defendant Vessel.” Rec. Doc.
1 at ¶ VI. Defendant Cross Maritime answered the complaint, however, and
denied that Cross Group owns or operates the Vessel. Rec. Doc. 20 at ¶ 6. It
appears that both Cross Group and Cross Maritime are wholly owned
subsidiaries of Cross Holdings, Inc. Rec. Docs. 23, 24. For the purposes of
this Order, it shall be assumed that Essex entered into an agreement with
Cross Maritime, the owner and operator of the Vessel.
1

2

May 2, 2016,” which Cross Maritime has allegedly failed to pay, in
breach of the rental agreement. Id. at ¶ XII.
On June 3, 2016, Essex filed a verified complaint, naming as
defendants the Vessel, in rem, the Crane, in rem, and Cross Group,
Inc., in personam. Rec. Doc. 1. On June 6, 2016, this Court granted
Essex’s motion for issuance of arrest warrants for the Vessel and
the Crane. Rec. Doc. 5. It was further ordered that Admiral
Security Services be appointed substitute custodian and that the
Vessel remain at its berth at 1950 South Van Ave., Houma, Louisiana
70363, and that the Crane remain on board, until further Court
order. Rec. Doc. 6. On August 2, 2016, this Court granted Essex’s
ex parte motion to lift the arrest of the Crane and granted Essex
permission to remove the Crane from the Vessel. Rec. Doc. 18. On
August 3, 2016, Cross Group, Inc. and Cross Maritime filed answers
to

Essex’s

verified

complaint.

Rec.

Docs.

19,

20.

Shortly

thereafter, on August 16, 2016, this Court granted Cross Maritime’s
ex parte motion to move the Vessel within the Port of Terrebonne
and to remove diving equipment belonging to Ranger Offshore, Inc.
Rec. Doc. 22.
On September 2, 2016, Essex filed its motion for order noting
default (Rec. Doc. 26) and its motion to set sale of the Vessel
(Rec. Doc. 27). Two weeks later, on September 16, 2016, Wells Fargo
Equipment Finance, Inc. (“Wells Fargo” or “Intervenor”) filed an
ex parte/consent motion to intervene, asserting an interest in the
3

Vessel by virtue of a promissory note by Cross Maritime in favor
of General Electric Capital Corporation, now owned by Wells Fargo.
Rec. Docs. 29, 32 at ¶ IV. Wells Fargo claimed payment of the
promissory note was secured by a preferred ship mortgage in favor
of Wells Fargo encumbering 100% of the Vessel. Rec. Doc. 32 at ¶
IV. On September 20, 2016, this Court granted Wells Fargo’s ex
parte/consent motion for issuance of an arrest warrant for the
Vessel. Rec. Doc. 40.
II.

THE PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. MOTION FOR ORDER NOTING DEFAULT
Essex’s motion for order noting default and accompanying
memorandum move for an order noting default under Rules C(4) and
C(6) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims
and Local Admiralty Rule 64.1, claiming that notice of the arrest
was published in the Times-Picayune on June 24, July 1, July 8,
and July 15, 2016. Rec. Doc. 26-1 at ¶ 4. Plus, actual notice was
provided to the owner of the Vessel and Wells Fargo Equipment
Finance, Inc. “as the sole lienholder of record with the U.S. Coast
Guard.” Id. at ¶ 10. Because no person or entity asserted either
ownership or possessory rights in either the Vessel or the Crane
within the 21-day time period provided for by the rules, Essex
requested “a Default Judgment noting a default of all persons who
have failed to appear and make claim or answer to the Vessel . .
. .” Id. at ¶ 11. No opposition memorandum was filed.
4

B. MOTION TO SET SALE OF SEIZED VESSEL AND MOTION TO CONTINUE
Relying on Supplemental Rule E, Essex argues that the Vessel
is earning no revenue and that the continued arrest of the Vessel
exposes it to “risks of loss or other hazards.” Rec. Doc. 27-1 at
5. Additionally, Essex asserts that Cross Maritime’s “failure to
post security (or even attempt to post security) for release of
the Vessel [in the four months after its arrest] constitute
unreasonable delay.” Id. at 5. According to Essex, the Vessel
accrues $720.00 in custodial costs per day, amounting to more than
$60,000 as of September 2, 2016. Id. at 6.
In its opposition, Cross Maritime alleges that Essex has
failed to substantiate its claim for necessaries or state “the
exact amount of the alleged past due rental payments that Essex
claims to be outstanding at the time of the Vessel arrest.” Rec.
Doc. 28 at 2. Even though Cross Maritime admits that it has
received a “ball park” estimate of the amounts due, it believes
that “Essex’s estimates are grossly inflated and that it is being
forced under economic duress to pay sums above and beyond the
amount of rental payments due for the actual rental of the crane
through the date of arrest in order to secure the release of the
Vessel.” Id.2 Relying on a due process argument, Cross Maritime

Cross Maritime also asserts that Essex has verbally quoted to them sums
including rental amounts accruing after the arrest and contractual interest
due, both of which Cross Maritime asserts should not be included in
calculating the maritime lien and amount necessary to secure release of the
Vessel. Rec. Doc. 28 at 3.
2

5

asserts that Essex should be made to detail the exact amount of
its lien for necessaries before the Vessel is set for sale and
Cross Maritime is deprived of its ownership interest. Id. at 3-4.
Until

such

an

accounting

is

provided,

Cross

Maritime

cannot

determine what amount is needed to discharge the alleged lien and
vacate the Vessel’s arrest. Id. at 4.
Additionally, Cross Maritime alleges that Essex is in default
of its own financial obligations to Well Fargo Capital Finance
(“WFCF”) to the extent that some of Essex’s assets have been seized
for public sale. Rec. Doc. 28 at 4 (citing Rec. Doc. 28-1 at 3-6,
a July 11, 2016 Business Wire article detailing updates on Essex’s
business). Accordingly, on July 18, 2016, WFCF convened a public
auction of all of Essex’s personal property, including “accounts”
and “general intangibles.” Id. (citing Rec. Doc. 28-1 at 7, “Notice
of

Public

Essex’s

Sale”).

ownership

Consequently,
interest

in

Cross
the

Maritime

claims

asserts

asserted

in

that
this

litigation are uncertain, such that Essex may have already ceased,
or will cease, to have standing if those claims were or are sold
at public auction. Id. at 5.
In its brief reply, Essex states that Cross Maritime failed
to contest any of the three bases for an interlocutory sale under
Supplemental Rule E. Rec. Doc. 44 at 1-2. Further, Essex notes
that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to examine the merits
of the underlying claims when determining the appropriateness of
6

an interlocutory sale of the vessel. Id. at 3. Nonetheless, Essex
argues that it provided a verified complaint including the expenses
incurred by Essex, amounts owed by Cross Maritime (including more
than $200,000.00 in unpaid rentals), and a statement attesting to
Essex’s standing to bring these claims. Id. at 3-4.
Notably, since its intervention on September 16, 2016, Wells
Fargo has not filed a motion or memorandum in support of or in
opposition to Essex’s motion to set sale of the Vessel.
III. LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. MOTION FOR ORDER NOTING DEFAULT
Under Rule C(4) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or
Maritime Claims, public notice of an action and arrest must be
made

if

the

property

is

not

released

within

14

days

after

execution. FED. R. CIV. P. C(4). Rule C(6) further provides that in
an action in rem, “(i) a person who asserts a right of possession
or any ownership interest in the property that is the subject of
the action must file a verified statement of right or interest:
(A) within 14 days after the execution of process, or (B) within
the time that the court allows . . . .” Local Admiralty Rule 64.1
provides that any time publication is necessary under Admiralty
Rule C(4), “the time for filing . . . any ownership interest in
the property . . . is hereby extended for a period of 21 days from
the date of the publication.” FED. R. CIV. P. C(6). Local Admiralty
Rule 64.5 provides that, unless otherwise ordered by the court or
7

provided by law, all such notices shall be published in the TimesPicayune.3
Here, the Vessel was arrested sometime after the June, 6,
2016 order granting the motion for issuance of warrants was entered
by this Court.4 Presumably within 14 days after execution of the
warrant, Essex published the required notice in the Times-Picayune
on June 24, 2016. It appears to the Court that Essex satisfied all
of the notice requirements set forth in both the supplemental
admiralty rules and local admiralty rules, as evidenced by the
affidavit and legal notice attached to its motion. Rec. Doc. 262. Nonetheless, this Court permitted Wells Fargo to intervene on
September 16, 2016, after the 21-day waiting period expired, in
accordance with Rule C(6)(i)(B). Rec. Doc. 31. Even though Wells
Fargo did not file a verified statement of interest within the 21day period, this Court nonetheless felt that it was appropriate to
allow Wells Fargo an opportunity to assert its purported rights.
Given that the notices were published three months ago and there
have been no additional interventions, granting Essex’s motion
will serve only to limit the suit to the parties who have already

LAR 64.1 also provides that the notice must contain particular information
and it appears that the notice published by Essex in the Times-Picayune
included all such information, save for the name of the marshal who seized
the vessel and that a person asserting an ownership or possessory interest
may file within any time allowed by the court (not only 21 days after the
first publication). Rec. Doc. 26-2 at 2.
4 Rec. Doc. 5. It appears that Todd Thibodeaux was served with the warrant,
order, and accompanying motion on June 8, 2016. Rec. Doc. 11 at 1.
3

8

joined. To the extent that Essex’s motion seeks to limit any
further interventions, it should be granted subject to good cause
exception.
B. MOTION TO SET SALE OF SEIZED VESSEL AND MOTION TO CONTINUE
Under Rule E(9)(a) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or
Maritime Claims,
On application of a party . . . the court may order all
or part of the property sold—with the sales proceeds, or
as much of them as will satisfy the 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 or
disproportionate; or

(C)

there is an unreasonable delay in securing release
of the property.

FED. R. CIV. P. E(9)(a). “In order to prevail, the lienors need only
show one of the three criteria.” Bollinger Quick Repair, LLC v. Le
Pelican MV, No. 00-308, 2000 WL 798497, *2 (E.D. La. June 20, 2000)
(citing

Merchs.

Nat’l

Bank

of

Mobile

v.

Dredge

Gen.

G.

L.

Gillespie, 663 F.2d 1338 (5th Cir. 1981); Silver Star Enters.,
Inc. v. M/V Saramacca, 19 F.3d 1008, 1014 (5th Cir. 1994); Triton
Container Int’l Ltd. V. Baltic Shipping Co., No. 95-0427, 1995 WL
341579 (E.D. La. June 7, 1995)).
In Merchants National Bank of Mobile, the Fifth Circuit
determined that the interlocutory sale of a couple of vessels was
justifiable when (1) expert evidence suggested that if the vessels
9

were to lay idly without routine maintenance, the engine(s) might
rust and freeze up, the electric equipment was susceptible to
corrosion, rust, and general deterioration, and the hulls and
superstructures

were

subject

to

rusting;

(2)

the

costs

attributable to the vessels exceeded $17,000 per month, all of
which

was

paid

by

the

lienholders

“with

uncertain

hope

of

reimbursement”; and (3) the vessel owners “never posted bond,
entered into any stipulation, or otherwise attempted to secure the
release of the vessels pursuant to Rule E(5).” 663 F.2d at 1342.
Furthermore, Essex cites to Boland Marine & Mfg. Co., LLC v.
M/V A.G. NAVAJO, No. 02-0658, 2002 WL 31654856, at *3 (E.D. La.
Nov. 9, 2002), for the proposition that “[a] vessel is liable to
deteriorate when the vessel is not earning revenue, is not being
maintained, has no crew and is exposed to collision risks or other
hazards.” Rec. Doc. 27-1 at 5. In Boland, however, plaintiffs hired
a marine surveyor to inspect the vessel and the surveyor determined
that “the vessel was moored near two floating derrick barges in a
busy waterway, that the vessel was not working or earning revenue,
that there was no crew on board, that no maintenance work had been
performed lately, and that the aft main deck and aft controls were
in poor condition.” Boland, 2002 WL 31654856, at *3. Additionally,
the motion for interlocutory sale was filed about four months after
the

vessel

was

arrested.

Id.

at

*2.

Ultimately,

the

court

determined that plaintiffs were entitled to an interlocutory sale
10

“based either on [the owner’s] unreasonable delay in securing the
release

of

the

[vessel]

or

on

the

vessel’s

potential

for

deterioration, decay, or injury.” Id. at *4.
Here, Essex has alleged only that the vessel is earning no
revenue while under arrest and is exposed to various “risks of
loss and hazards” on a daily basis. Rec. Doc. 27-1 at 5. Even
though these allegations were not denied by Cross Maritime in its
opposition memorandum, the Court is not inclined to find this a
sufficient basis for ordering the sale of the Vessel.
Turning to the second basis for setting the sale of a vessel,
the

expense

of

keeping

the

property

may

be

excessive

or

disproportionate when, for example, costs exceed $17,000 per month
(as in Merchants National Bank, 663 F.2d at 1342) or the annual
cost is $166,000 (or about $13,833.33 per month, as in Ferrous
Fin. Servs. Co. v. O/S. Arctic Producer, 567 F. Supp. 400, 401
(W.D. Wash. 1983)). Here, it is unclear whether or not Essex argues
that the cost is excessive or disproportionate, but the Court finds
that

the

daily

custodial

costs

of

$720.00

(amounting

to

approximately $21,600.00 per month) are excessive.
Turning to the third basis for setting the sale of a vessel,
what amounts to an unreasonable delay depends on the circumstances.
See Silver Star Enters., 19 F.3d at 1014 (in which the Fifth
Circuit

affirmed

the

district

court’s

judgment

regarding

the

interlocutory sale of the vessel due to an unreasonable delay when
11

it was undisputed that the owner of the vessel “failed to post
security for the release of the vessel during the seven months
between the time of arrest and the court’s sale order”). Essex
asserts that “[c]ourts have held a lapse of three months or more
in securing the release of a vessel after its arrest constitutes
an unreasonable delay.” Rec. Doc. 27-1 at 5. In support of this
proposition, Essex cites several cases, including Silver Star
Enterprises

and

Merchants

Nat’l

Bank,

previously

discussed.

Additionally, Essex refers to Neptune Orient Lines v. Halla Merch.
Marine Co., No. 97-3828, 1998 WL 128993, at *6 (E.D. La. Mar. 20,
1998)

(in

which

the

court

denied

a

motion

to

postpone

the

interlocutory sale of the vessel, because (1) the action was
initiated three and one half months earlier and the owner had not
yet posted security, such that further delay would be unreasonable,
(2) the vessel was subject to deterioration, and (3) “[m]ost
importantly,

postponement

of

the

sale

would

prejudice

crewmembers”); Ferrous Fin. Servs. Co., 567 F. Supp. at 401 (in
which the court granted the motion for an interlocutory sale where
the case was unlikely to be resolved within the year, no attempt
to release the vessel had been made in the four months since its
arrest, and the annual cost of keeping the vessel was $166,000,
such that there was an unreasonable delay in securing the release
of the vessel and the expense of keeping the vessel was excessive);
and Bollinger Quick Repair, LLC v. Le Pelican MV, No. 00-308, 2000
12

WL 798497, at *2 (E.D. La. June 20, 2000) (in which four months
had elapsed since the arrest of the vessel).
Here, the vessel was arrested about four months ago. Rec.
Docs. 5, 11. During that time, Cross Maritime has allegedly
promised payment to Essex, but it has not attempted to post
security. Rec. Doc. 27-1 at 6. In light of the overwhelming
jurisprudence, this Court is inclined to find that there has been
an unreasonable delay in securing release of the vessel.
Turning to Cross Maritime’s opposition, it is important to
note that this is an interlocutory sale in which the rule “does
not require, or even mention, the resolution of the merits of any
particular claim; instead, the Rule focuses entirely on avoiding
the recognized complications associated with maintaining a vessel
under arrest.” Freret Marine Supply v. M/V ENCHANGED CAPRI, No.
00-3805, 2001 WL 649764, at *1 (E.D. La. June 11, 2001), aff’d 37
F. App’x 714 (5th Cir. 2002). In Ferrous Fin. Serv. Co., when
defendants argued that the interlocutory sale of the vessel,
“without the court first rendering judgment, is a deprivation of
property without due process of law in violation of the Fifth
Amendment,”

the

court

stated

that

the

contention

was

“unpersuasive, without merit, and is rejected.” Ferrous, 567 F.
Supp. at 401. “The interlocutory sale of a vessel is not a
deprivation of property but rather a necessary substitution of the

13

proceeds of the sale, with all of the constitutional safeguards
necessitated by the in rem process.” Id.
Thus,

even

though

Essex

merely

claimed

in

its

verified

complaint that it was owed approximately $213,000 (Rec. Doc. 1 at
¶ 12), without providing a detailed accounting that would allow
Cross Maritime or the Court to determine the amount attributable
to necessaries, it is not the responsibility of this Court at this
time to examine the merits of Essex’s claim. As Essex pointed out,
Cross Maritime did “not cite a single case in which a court delayed
the sale of a vessel due to the purported need for an accounting
of a lien claim or the purported issue of standing to bring a
claim.” Rec. Doc. 44 at 2. If Cross Maritime wanted to challenge
the propriety of the arrest, it could have filed for an evidentiary
hearing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure E(4)(f).5 Further,
without sufficient proof that Essex’s interest in this litigation
has been sold, Essex appears to maintain a vested interest in the
outcome and therefore has standing.6
This Court is inclined to agree with Essex:

“The continued

arrest is serving no useful purpose, and the Vessel’s Owner has
had more than sufficient time to secure the release of the Vessel.”

This rule provides that “[w]henever property is arrested or attached, any
person claiming an interest in it shall be entitled to a prompt hearing at
which the plaintiff shall be required to show why the arrest or attachment
should not be vacated or other relief granted consistent with these rules.”
FED. R. CIV. P. E(4)(f).
6 Despite the article cited by Cross Maritime (Rec. Doc. 28-1 at 7), it is not
clear that Essex’s interest in the litigation has been sold.
5

14

Rec. Doc. 27-1 at 7. The sale of the Vessel is permitted under
either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure E(9)(a)(1)(B) or (C),
because the expense of keeping it is excessive and there was an
unreasonable delay in securing its release.
In its original motion, Essex requested a sale date of October
3, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. Rec. Doc. 27-1 at 3. In order to conform to
Local Admiralty Rule 64.6, which requires publication of all vessel
sales at least 14 days before the scheduled date, and after
conferring with the United States Marshal’s Service, Essex filed
a motion to continue the sale date to October 17, 2016 at 10:00
a.m. Rec. Doc. 46 at 1. Thereafter, Essex again filed a motion to
continue the sale date to October 24, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. Rec. Doc.
49 at 1-2.
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons outlined above,
IT IS ORDERED that Essex’s motion for order noting default
(Rec. Doc. 26) is GRANTED in accordance with the analysis above.
All persons and/or entities claiming an interest in the DB CROSSMAR
14, bearing Official Number 1025224, who have not yet filed and
served on counsel for Plaintiff a verified statement of right or
interest are hereby barred from filing any such statement.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Essex’s motion to set sale of the
seized vessel (Rec. Doc. 27) is GRANTED.

15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Essex’s first motion to continue
the sale (Rec. Doc. 46) is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Essex’s second motion to continue
the sale (Rec. Doc. 49) is GRANTED. Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States Marshals Service
is directed to sell the DB CROSSMAR 14, Official Number 1025224
(the “Vessel”), to the highest bidder at public auction, with
minimum bid increments of $10,000.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the auction be held on October 24,
2016 at 10:00 a.m. in the lobby of the U.S. District Court, 500
Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Essex Crane Rental Corp. will
advertise the auction in the Times-Picayune in accordance with the
Local Rules of this Court. The costs of the advertisement and an
affidavit of publication will constitute taxable costs in this
action and be recoverable as custodia legis from the sale proceeds
of the Vessel.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the auction will be conducted in
accordance with Local Admiralty Rule 64.6, which is incorporated
by reference into this Order. In the event of default by the
highest bidder in consummating the purchase, the deposit will be
forfeited and placed into the Court Registry pending further Court
order.

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Vessel will be sold “as is,
where is,” and free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, and preexisting claims on the vessel, whether recorded or not.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that anyone wishing to inspect the
Vessel

must

first

present

himself,

along

with

photo

identification, to the office of the U.S. Marshals Service, 500
Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, and/or the Substitute
Custodian, Admiral Security Services. The Vessel presently lies
afloat at 1950 South Van Ave., Houma, Louisiana 70363.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all charges incurred by the United
States Marshal, Essex Crane Rental Corp., and other parties funding
the United States Marshal’s costs and those fees and costs of the
Substitute Custodian with respect to the Vessel during the period
of arrest shall be expenses of the sale which shall be taxed as
costs of custodia legis against the proceeds of the sale.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the proceeds of the sale will
remain in the Court Registry in an interest bearing account pending
further order of this Court.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 6th day of October, 2016.

___________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17