SEA HUNTERS LP v. UNIDENTIFIED WRECKED AND ABANDONED VESSEL
Filing
338
ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE denying 244 and 245 Motion for Summary Judgment; mooting 246 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 307 Report and Recommendations. By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of Maine
SEA HUNTERS, LP,
Plaintiff
v.
THE S.S. PORT NICHOLSON,
Her Tackle, Apparel, Cargo,
Appurtenances, and Property, in Rem
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 2:08-cv-272-GZS
ORDER AFFIRMING THE
RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on November 29, 2014, his
Recommended Decision (ECF No. 307). Intervening Plaintiff, Mission Recovery, LLC, filed its
Objection to the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 311) on December 12, 2014. Thereafter, on
December 15, 2015, the Magistrate Judge stayed further briefing related to the cross-motions for
summary judgment (ECF No. 314). On February 24, 2015, the stay was lifted and deadlines were
set to complete briefing related to the cross-motions for summary judgment (ECF No. 324). In
accordance with those deadlines, Plaintiff Sea Hunter’s, LP filed its Response to Mission Recovery’s
Objection (ECF No. 326) on March 2, 2015. Mission Recovery then filed a Reply (ECF No. 335) on
March 16, 2015. Additionally, Claimant Secretary of State, Department of Transport for the United
Kingdom (UK DfT) filed a Reply to Mission Recovery’s Objection (ECF No. 333) on March 16,
2015.
I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together
with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the
Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision; and I concur with the recommendations of the United
States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision and considering the
same record that was presented to the United States Magistrate Judge.
While the Court
acknowledges that there have been a number of factual developments since the issuance of the
Recommended Decision, the Court believes those factual developments are best addressed through
the response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause and other pending motions. Therefore, recognizing
its discretion to consider further evidence, the Court chooses not consider any new evidence that has
been placed on the docket since the issuance of the Recommended Decision and considers the
Recommended Decision based on the record that was considered by the Magistrate Judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b).
1.
It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge
is hereby AFFIRMED.
2.
It is hereby ORDERED that Mission Recovery’s Request for oral argument is
DENIED.
3.
It is hereby ORDERED that Sea Hunters’ Motion to Strike (ECF No. 280) is
GRANTED IN PART with respect to those portions of UK DfT’s opposing brief
that bear on the merits of the cross-motions for summary judgment, as well as
statements of opposing and additional facts and record materials filed in support
thereof, and otherwise DENIED.
3.
It is hereby ORDERED that Sea Hunters’ and Mission Recovery’s Cross-motions
for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 244 & 245) are hereby DENIED. This ruling is
without prejudice to any remaining party moving to file further dispositive motions
in light of the procedural and factual developments that have occurred to date.
4.
It is hereby ORDERED that Mission Recovery’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(ECF No. 246) is hereby MOOT.
/s/George Z. Singal
U.S. District Judge
Dated this 17th day of March, 2015.
2
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?