Great Lakes Exploration Group LLC v. Unidentified Wrecked and (For Salvage-Right Purposes), Abandoned Sailing Vessel, The

Filing 5

ORDER denying 2 motion to appoint custodian, denying 3 motion for hearing; signed by Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell, ymc)

G r e a t Lakes Exploration Group LLC v. Unidentified Wrecked and (For Sa...bandoned Sailing Vessel, The

Doc. 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W E S T ER N DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN S O U T H ER N DIVISION

G R E A T LAKES EXPLORATION G R O U P LLC, P l a i n ti f f , F i l e No. 1:04-CV-375 v. H O N . ROBERT HOLMES BELL T H E UNIDENTIFIED, WRECKED AND (FOR SALVAGE-RIGHT PURPOSES), A B A N D O N E D SAILING VESSEL, h e r engines, tackle, apparel, appurtenances, c a r g o , etc. located within a circle having a r a d i u s of 3.5 statute miles, whose center poin t is at coordinates 45º 32.8' North l a t it u d e and 86º 41.5' West longitude, I n Rem, De fend ant. _____________________________________/ ORDER Befo re this Court is Plaintiff's verified complaint, motion for in camera hearing and m o t i o n for appointment of substitute custodian. Pursuant to Rule C of the Supplemental R u l e s of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, this Court must issue a warrant for the arrest of the vessel if the conditions for an in rem actio n appear to exist. FED. R. CIV. P. SUPPL. C (3)(ii)(A). In order for an in rem action to appear to exist, the cause of action must be alleged with reasonable particularity. FED. R. CIV. P. SUPPL. C (2)(b). Further, Rule E (2) provides

Dockets.Justia.com

t h a t the complaint shall state the circumstances from which the claim arises with such particu larity that the defendant or claimant will be able, without moving for a more definite statem ent, to commence an investigation of the facts and to frame a responsive pleading. F ED. R. CIV. P. SUPPL. E (2). T h e instant complaint fails to allege with reasonable specificity the circumstances f r o m which the claim arises. The complaint fails to give any identifying information of the v e s s e l at issue. The complaint merely states that there is a vessel located within a 3.5 statute m i l e s radius within specific coordinates, that was owned by a foreign research expedition, a n d that sank scores of years ago. By providing no further identifying information and d e s i g n a ti n g such a large area, this Court concludes that a potential claimant could neither c o m m e n c e an investigation nor frame a responsive pleading. As a result, the complaint does not provide a basis for this Court to issue a warrant for the arrest of the vessel. P l a i n ti f f has also filed a motion for in camera hearing to provide this Court additional i n f o r m a ti o n to support the warrant for arrest of the vessel. Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, S u p p l e m e n t a l Rule C (3) makes no provision for a pre-arrest hearing. Although Plaintiff a l l eg e s that much of the information it intends to provide in camera requires protection from pub lic disclosure, this Court merely requires that the complaint and supporting documents o n file allege sufficient information that would allow a claimant to frame a response. As an in camera hearing will not cure the pleading defect, the requested hearing is irrelevant to this Co urt's decision regarding the warrant for arrest of the vessel.

2

La stl y, because Plaintiff's pleading defect does not provide this Court with a sufficient basis to issue a warrant for arrest of the vessel, an appointment of a substitute custodian is no t yet warranted. Accordingly, I T IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for in camera hearing (Docket # 3 ) is DENIED. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of substitute c u s t o d i a n (Docket #2) is DENIED.

Da te:

June 23, 2004

/s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLM E S BELL C H IE F UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3