YORK MARINE INC v. INTREPID M/V et al

Filing 82

ORDER on Motions - Granting 62 Defendant's Motion to Set Amount of Bond; Denying 70 Motion for Order of Payment of Custodia Legis Expenses Prior to Release of Vessel upon Filing of Bond; Granting in part 76 Plaintiff's Motion for Order to Preserve Evidence. By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (akr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
YORK MARINE, INC.,

)
)
Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant, )
)
v.
)
)
M/V INTREPID, in rem,
)
)
Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff, )
and Counter-Claimant,
)
)
and
)
)
JOHN T. WILSON, in personam,
)
)
Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff, )
and Counter-Claimant,
)
)
and
)
)
MICHAEL YORK,
)
)
Third-Party Defendant.
)

2:15-cv-00184-JDL

ORDER ON MOTIONS
This case involves an action by York Marine, Inc. (“York Marine”) to foreclose
on a maritime lien against the vessel M/V Intrepid (the “Vessel”) based on claims of
breach of contract and unjust enrichment against Defendant John T. Wilson, the
owner of the Vessel. ECF No. 9. Defendants have brought counterclaims and thirdparty claims against York Marine and Michael York, respectively, for negligence,
breach of warranty of workmanlike performance, fraud, conversion, and violation of
the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, 5 M.R.S.A. § 207 (2016). ECF No. 14. There
are three motions currently before the court: Defendant Wilson’s motion to set

amount of bond (ECF No. 62), Plaintiff’s motion for order of payment of custodia
legis expenses prior to release of vessel upon filing of bond (ECF No. 70), and
Plaintiff’s motion for order to preserve evidence (ECF No. 76). A hearing was held
on April 21, 2016. ECF No. 81. I address each motion below.
1.

Defendant’s Motion to Set Amount of Bond (ECF No. 62)
The motion is GRANTED. Defendant’s counsel shall prepare a proposed

bond consistent with the following findings as to the amount “sufficient to cover the
amount of the plaintiff’s claim fairly stated with accrued interest and costs,” Fed. R.
Civ. P. Suppl. R. E(5)(a).
A. Supported invoices excluding custodia legis expenses
and excluding finance charges
B. Prejudgment interest on $59,621.43 at the rate of the
one-year United States Treasury bill rate plus 3%1
C. Custodia legis expenses of the substitute custodian
D. Custodia legis expenses of the United States Marshal
and filing fee
The Vessel shall not be moved before May 20, 2016.

= $59,621.43
= TBD
= $18,000.00
= $2,405.58
Accordingly, the

additional sum of $4,858 sought by Plaintiff for moving-related expenses if the
vessel was moved prior to May 20, 2016, is not included.
The proposed bond shall be submitted to Plaintiff’s counsel for comment, and
the parties shall seek to resolve any disagreements regarding the wording of the
bond prior to its submission to the court by Defendant.

See Grande v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 460 F. Supp. 2d 163, 165-66 (D. Me. 2006); 14
M.R.S.A. § 1602-B(3) (2016).
1

2.

Motion for Order of Payment of Custodia Legis Expenses Prior to
Release of Vessel upon Filing of Bond (ECF No. 70)
Because the court has included the custodia legis expenses in the bond that

will issue, the motion is DENIED.
3.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Preserve Evidence (ECF No. 76)
The motion is GRANTED IN PART as follows: Plaintiff’s representatives,

no more than two, shall be permitted to be present for the commissioning of the
Vessel (including the initial testing, pulling of oil samples, and running of the
engine) and shall be permitted to pull their own oil samples. The commissioning
shall be scheduled at a time, date, and place that is convenient for all parties.
Defendant will be under a continuing obligation to thereafter notify Plaintiff of any
anomalies with the engine. The motion is DENIED in all other respects.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 25th day of April, 2016.

/s/ Jon D. Levy
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE