Cashman Equipment Corp et al v. Offshore Contractors Ltd et al

Filing 225

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 210 Motion to Intervene; mooting 220 Motion to Amend/Correct Intervenor Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kathleen Kay on 4/7/2016. (crt,Dauterive, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

CASHMAN EQUIPMENT CORP.
ET AL.

:

DOCKET NO. 15-cv-396

VERSUS

:

JUDGE MINALDI

OFFSHORE CONTRACTORS LTD.
ET AL.

:

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the court is a Motion to Intervene [doc. 210] filed on March 16, 2016 by Rickey
Barnett et al. (“proposed intervenors”). The Motion is opposed by Cashman Equipment Corp. and
Servicio Marina Superior, LLC (“plaintiffs”). Doc. 218.
For the reasons stated below, the Motion to Intervene is DENIED, mooting the Motion for
Leave to File Amended Intervenor Complaint [doc. 220].
I.
BACKGROUND
This suit originated with the application for a writ of maritime attachment filed by plaintiffs
Cashman Equipment Corporation and Servicio Marina Superior LLC on February 18, 2015. Doc.
1. The plaintiffs sought a writ of maritime attachment over a ship called Global Iroquois in
satisfaction of consent judgments against defendant OPI International Contractors, Ltd. in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Id.
The proposed intervenors are seamen who were employed aboard a vessel called the DLB332, which they allege is a sister vessel to the Global Iroquois. Doc. 211, pp. 3–4. They claim that

-1-

they are owed in excess of $500,000 in unpaid wages and benefits from this employment, as well
as repatriation expenses, termination and other pay, and attorney’s fees and costs, and that their
demands for payment have been unsuccessful. Id. at 4–6. As a result they now assert a maritime
lien against the Global Iroquois for at least $1,500,000.00. 1 Id. at 6.
II.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
A motion to intervene must satisfy four requirements: (1) it must be timely; (2) the
applicant must have an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the
action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may, as a practical
matter, impair or impede its ability to protect its interest; and (4) the applicant’s interest must be
inadequately represented by the existing parties to the suit. Sierra Club v. Espy, 18 F.3d 1202,
1204–05 (5th Cir. 1994). The criteria are mandatory but Rule 24 “is to be construed liberally . . .
and doubts resolved in favor of the proposed intervenor.” In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litigation, 570
F.3d 244, 248 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting 6 JAMES W. MOORE ET AL., MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE
§ 24.03(1)(a), at 24–22 (3d ed. 2008)).
Plaintiffs assert that the Motion to Intervene is untimely and that proposed intervenors do
not have an interest in the Global Iroquois giving rise to a right to intervene.
Timeliness is determined by considering four factors: (1) the length of time a party knew
or reasonably should have known of its interest in the lawsuit, (2) the prejudice to existing parties
from the proposed intervenor’s delay in filing the motion; (3) the extent of the prejudice to the
intervening party if intervention is denied; and (4) the presence of unusual circumstances weighing
for or against intervention. Stallworth v. Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257, 264–66 (5th Cir. 1977).

1

By Motion for Leave to File Amended Intervenor Complaint, they seek to withdraw their wage penalty claim. Doc.
220.
-2-

“The analysis is contextual; absolute measures of timeliness should be ignored.” Sierra Club, 18
F.3d at 1205. Thus timeliness determinations are “largely committed to the discretion of the district
court.” Stallworth, 558 F.2d at 263.
The Global Iroquois was attached on February 19, 2015, one day after the instant suit was
filed. Docs. 1, 10. The plaintiffs offer an affidavit by James K. Cole (“Cole”), director of Offshore
Contractors, Ltd., to support the notion that the proposed intervention is untimely. Doc. 218, att.
1. Cole declared that he notified the crew of the DLB-332 through the vessel’s superintendent,
Richard Potter, of the Global Iroquois’ attachment when it occurred in February 2015. Id. at 2. He
also stated that he spoke at length about the attachment with Richard Saxton, chief engineer of the
DLB-332, in numerous telephone conversations from February 2015 through February 2016. Id.
The proposed intervenors state that they were relying on defendants’ promises that their
wages would be paid until November 15, 2015, when the defendants issued a statement that their
efforts to secure the necessary finances were unsuccessful. Doc. 219, att. 2. Pretermitting any
consideration of whether proposed intervenors’ reliance on statements made was prudent or
precluded them from taking action here, the proposed intervenors offer zero excuse for waiting an
additional four months to file the instant motion. 2 Therefore the first factor does not support a
finding of timeliness.
Under the second and third factors, the existing parties stand to be greatly prejudiced by
this intervention. They have already spent the time and money necessary to secure the consent
judgments entered. Because the proposed intervenors worked on a sister vessel rather than on the

2

They admit to a two and a half month delay, claiming that the instant motion was filed on February 1, 2016. Doc.
219, p. 2. However, the instant motion was filed on March 16, 2016, following the filing of a deficient motion on
March 10. See Docs. 208, 210. We can find no record of any prior attempt by the DLB-332 crew at intervention in this
case, but deem that even an unexcused delay of two and a half months would have weighed against the proposed
intervenors.
-3-

Global Iroquois itself, they cannot shown that they are entitled to any preference. 3 The proposed
intervenors dispute neither the plaintiffs’ contention that other parties have asserted claims
outranking theirs nor that there are insufficient funds to even satisfy the claims of these creditors.
See Doc. 218, p. 13. Furthermore, the proposed intervenors may still seek payment of their wages
by asserting lien rights in the DLB-332. Therefore the prejudice to them is minimal and the second
and third factors weigh against a finding of timeliness.
Finally, the parties have pointed to no “unusual circumstances” that would upset the
balance of factors described above. Accordingly, the Motion to Intervene is untimely. Because the
proposed intervenors have failed to satisfy the first requirement of intervention, we need not
consider the extent of their interest in the Global Iroquois as it relates to the other requirements.
III.
CONCLUSION
For reasons stated above, the Motion to Intervene [doc. 210] is DENIED, thereby mooting
the Motion for Leave to File Amended Intervenor Complaint [doc. 220].
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers this 7th day of April, 2016.

3

As plaintiffs point out, preferred maritime liens are “for wages of the crew of the vessel.” 46 U.S.C. § 31301(5)(D).
Nothing in the statute indicates that a preferred lien may be granted to the crew of a sister vessel.
-4-