Recovery Limited Partnership v. The Wrecked and Abandoned Vessell, S.S. Central America, et al.

Filing 229

OPINION entered and filed 8/31/16: This matter comes before the court on the Motion for Salvage Award ("Motion") and accompanying Memorandum in Support, filed by the Plaintiff, Recovery Limited Partnership ("RLP"), on Ja nuary 29, 2016. ECF Nos. 206 , 207 . For the reasons set forth in this Opinion, the court hereby GRANTS RLP a salvage award in the amount of ONE HUNDRED PERCENT (100%) of the fair market value of the items recovered in the 2014 recovery operations. The court DENIES prejudgment interest. Further, the court FINDS that "the proceeds of any [judicial] sale would clearly be inadequate to pay the salvor its full reward" in this case. R.M.S. Titanic, Inc., 286 F.3d at 20 4. The court further FINDS that the amount of RLP's salvage award can only be satisfied by the court conveying title to the artifacts. Accordingly, the court GRANTS RLP title to the artifacts recovered in the 2014 salvage operation s, as outlined. An Index of this Opinion is attached for reference purposes and made a part hereof. (See Opinion and Footnotes for Specifics) (Signed by Chief District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith on 8/31/16). Copies provided as directed 8/31/16.(ecav, )

UNITED

STATES

DISTRICT

EASTERN DISTRICT

OF

COURT

VIRGINIA

Norfolk Division

RECOVERY

LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP,

Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO:

2:87cv363

THE WRECKED AND ABANDONED VESSEL,
S.S.

CENTRAL AMERICA,

ET AL.,

Defendants.

OPINION

This

matter

comes

before

Salvage Award ("Motion")
filed by the Plaintiff,
January 29,

2 016.

review

prior

the

America"),

was

Discovery

opinions

relevant

the

Motion

for

and

HISTORY

commenced
Group,

orders

factual

on

207.

involving the wreck of

Columbus-America

numerous

206,

PROCEDURAL

This in rem action,

agent,

on

Recovery Limited Partnership ("RLP"),

ECF Nos.

("Central

court

and accompanying Memorandum in Support,

I.

America

the

and

in

the S.S.

in

1987

Inc.

this

procedural

Central

by

RLP's

("CADG").

case

The

thoroughly

history,

and

that

history will not be repeated in detail here.
The Central America was
to

New York City,

1857.
580

with

a

traveling from Aspinwall,

stop

in

Havana,

It left Havana on September 8, 1857,
people

and

commercial

gold

worth

Cuba,

when

Colombia,
it

sank

in

carrying approximately

over

$1.2

million

(1857

value) ,
gold.

along

The

with

vessel

and

unknown

sank

September 12, 1857,
personal

an

off

quantity

the

taking with

commercial

of

coast

personal

of

South

passenger

Carolina

it approximately 425 people,

gold,

and

hundreds

of

bags

of

on

the

mail.

Initial efforts to locate the shipwreck and salvage the gold were
unsuccessful.

CADG

filed

believed was

the

wrong

this

but

ship,

Central

first

South

salvor,

interference,

Several

in

Central America.

America,

Charleston,

action

two

years

entitled

CADG

to

That

later,

approximately
Carolina.

1987,

after
wreck

CADG

160
was

salvage

turned out

discovered

miles
then

the

locating

off

Central

it

to be

the

the

the

awarded

what

the

coast

of

status

of

America

by the court's Order of August 18,

to

without

1989.

insurance

actual

companies

filed

claims

the

recovered

gold, alleging they had insured the commercial gold shipments and
paid for the losses.

On August 14,

1990,

the court found that the

insurance companies had abandoned any right or claim to the gold,
and

CADG was

entitled

the gold.

Columbus-Am.

Abandoned

Sailing

1990)

to

and vested with

Discovery Grp.

Vessel,

742

("CADG I") . On appeal,

F.

v.

Supp.

the

sole ownership of

Unidentified,
1327,

the Court of

1344-48

Appeals

Wrecked &
(E.D.

Va.

for the Fourth

Circuit held that the district court erred in applying the law of
finds,

rather than the law of

salvage,

to the gold recovered from

the wreck.
F.2d 450,

On

Columbus-Am.
468

Discovery Grp.

(4th Cir.

remand,

the

1992)

court

the

parties

Columbus-Am.

found

18,

1993)

decision,
whether

the

87-363-N,

("CADG

CADG

the

insurance

remaining

ten

a

Discovery Grp.
1995)

v.

("CADG

The

Fourth

eventually

agreed

underwriters

to

the

Mut.

Ins.

a

specie and dismissed all

as

(10%),

owned

IV") .

CADG

and

gold
Co.,
and

297,

300

Discovery Grp.

(4th Cir.

2000)

56

the

v.

Atl.

Mut.

moved

to

be

to

a

and

gold.

on remand,
were

divided

this

to decide
to

insurance

Columbus-Am.
562,

insurance

Va.

entitled

each

F.3d 556,

parties,

(E.D.

affirmed

claimed.

which

of

at *32-33

whether
it

the

576

(4th

underwriters

the

gold

including

in

"the

over future salvage."

Ins.

Co.,

203

F.3d 291,

("CADG V").

There were then only infrequent filings in this case,

RLP

974

Wrecked & Abandoned

whole

the

settlement,

claims

a

for

Circuit

possibility of claims between the parties
Columbus-Am.

Co.,

entitled

marketing plan

Unidentified,

III") .

Atl.

was

1993 WL 580900,

percent

actually

Ins.

the recovered gold,

but instructed the district court,

underwriter

Cir.

No.

v.

that

(90%) of

develop

Discovery Grp.

Sailing Vessel,
Nov.

to

Mut.

("CADG II").

salvage award of ninety percent
directed

v. Atl.

substituted

as

the

until

real-party-in-interest

for

CADG on January 3, 2014. ECF No. 1.l On April 17, 2014, RLP filed

This motion was filed by RLP
Receiver, Ira Owen Kane. See ECF No.

through its court-appointed
1. RLP was placed under the

an

in

rem complaint

against

new civil

action,

Case

The

ordered

a

court

artifacts
the

from

action

weeks.

and

(2014

parties

to

filed

(2) Richard
76

No.

84

T.

July

Central

Warrant

of

of

RLP

to

America

Maritime

Accordingly,
Mem.

the

(3)

Collette

and

ECF No.

2014,
and

America.

the

85

Order

at

Robol

(4)

("2014 Case").

portions

publish

for

four

Arrest

No.

notice

Law

Milton

T.

of

ECF

and four

interest

(2014

Office

and

successive

at 1-2,

and

16

Davidson

court

named

RLP

as

Mem.

Op.

&

granted
the

in

Case);

("Robol"),

ECF

("Davidson"),

ECF

Butterworth

CADG's

ECF

94

The court also reopened Case No.

No.

RLP's

Motion

salvor-in-possession

Order

denied
7,

right

of

Jr.

(2014 Case).

the

court

a

ECF

and

Case) ;

9,

asserting

(1) CADG,

Case);

Party,

Central

America.

the

No. 1

arrest

the

ECF

directed

claims,

Robol

("Butterworth"),

the

of

Issue

timely

(2014

Substitute

and

America:

(2014

On

ship,

for

which opened a

Case) . RLP complied with the court's Order,

Central

No.

Central America,

No. 2:14cvl60.:!

warrant

arrest

Order

No. 4

the

the

the

at

claim

(ECF No.

2:87cv363,

to
of

26,

ECF

No.

to

the

Central

(2014

Case)).

95

92.

and consolidated Case

supervision of the Receiver by the Court of Common Pleas of
Franklin County,
Ohio,
and charged with making "every effort
to . . . conduct such maritime operations that are designed to
make a positive financial return" for RLP. See Mem. Op. & Order
of July 9, 2014, at 4-5, ECF No. 92.

2 Filings in the 2014 Case, Case No. 2:14cvl60, are noted as
such.

All other docket

entries are

in Case No.

2:87cv363.

No.

2:14cvl60

No. 94

with

(ECF No. 95

court dismissed,
the
at

claims
1-2,

(2014

Robol,

No.

114.

a notice of appeal,
court's

judgment

Therefore,
in the

No.

Case)).

Robol,

Mem.

Further,

Order

at

6,

ECF

on August 8, 2014,

the

to state a claim under salvage law,

Davidson,

and

Davidson,

Butterworth.
and

Mem.

Butterworth

Order

each

filed

and the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district

on

RLP was

each

claim.

left as

the

See

ECF

Nos.

173,

181,

187.

only party asserting an interest

Central America.

On September 5, 2014,
ECF

2:87cv363.

for failure

of

ECF

Case

No.

139.

Memorandum

Robol,

Order

of

RLP filed a Motion for Award of Title.

whose

claim

the

August 8, 2014,

RLP's motion because

court

filed

a

"it does not acknowledge

dismissed

in

the

Response,

opposing

[Robol's]

right to

a salvage award." Resp. at 1, ECF No. 143.3 RLP filed its Reply
on

September 15, 2014.

Title

became

ripe

on

decided the appeals of
claims
No.

brought

191

Opinion

(Fourth
of

Award of
the

by

ECF

No.

156.

July

31,

2015,

Robol,

Circuit

finding

common law of

Motion

after

the

for

Award

Fourth

of

Circuit

this court's dismissal of the third-party
Davidson,
Mandate

August 11, 2015,

Title,

The

finds,

that

the

on

and

Butterworth.

last

court

pending

denied

applies

to

the

appeal).

the

the admiralty law of

See

ECF
By

Motion

for

salvage,

not

Central America wreck.

3 Robol's Response was filed while his appeal of the court's
dismissal
Circuit.

of

his

third-party

claim

was

pending

in

the

Fourth

Op.

at

17,

ECF No.

192.

The court advised RLP that it could move

for a salvage award under maritime law,
to be considered for a salvage award.
On

January

29,

2016,

Memorandum in Support.
than

one

hundred

the

salvaged

expenses

in

Id. at 16-17.

filed

the

instant

Motion

RLP requests a salvage award of not

percent

items recovered in 2014,
to

RLP

and detailed the factors

(100%)

the

value

of

the

less

salvaged

to be made in specie by conveying title

items,

planning

of

and

and

and

prejudgment

conducting

the

interest
salvage.

on

RLP's

Mem.

Supp.

at 3-4. No responses to the Motion were filed.
The
Motion,

court
and

on July 25,

No.

and

a

directed

July 25, 2016.

Fact

held

RLP

2016.

three-day

that

RLP

evidentiary

file

any

supplemental

filed its Supplemental
ECF No.

Conclusions

228.

of

hearing

on
brief

Memorandum in

the
by

Support

It attached Proposed Findings of

Law

("Proposed

Findings").

ECF

228-1. This matter is ripe for decision.
II.

ADMIRALTY

LAW

OF

SALVAGE

A. Determination of Salvage Award

A

salvage award

is

voluntarily rendered,

to embark in
Blackwall,

operations,
Rather

77

"a reward

(10

Wall)

1,

to

save

14

a salvor is entitled to

than obtaining

for perilous

and as an inducement

such undertakings
U.S.

given

title

to

the

services,

to seamen and others

life and property."

(1869).

The

To encourage salvage

"liberal compensation."
salvaged property,

a

Id.

salvor

acts on behalf of
against

the

(1879).

the property's owner,

property

saved.

The

thereby obtaining a lien

"Sabine" ,

101

U.S.

384,

The salvor's lien is exclusive and prior to all others,

and grants the salvor a possessory interest in the res,
satisfaction

F.3d 943,

of

963

the

lien.

(4th Cir.

R.M.S.

1999).

A

Titanic,

Inc.

v.

The

salvor

entitlement
a

a

marine

voluntarily
(3)

to

must

that

peril;

rendered

the

a

the

salvage

award,

determining

(2)

has

(1)

that
an

efforts

101 U.S.

court

three

award:

without

salvage

part. The "Sabine",
Once

establish

salvage

were

77

U.S.

expended
(2)
the

the

the

amount

(10 Wall)

by

the

at

and

employed

danger

to

of

an

13-14.

that

seven

award

These

in

skill,

and

the

by

salvors

which

such

a

to

salved

prove

property

services

contractual
in

salvor

factors
The

were

duty,-

whole

and

or

in

entitled

to

for

energy

property;

property

to

consider

in

first six factors have

salvage.

six factors

in

is

the "main ingredients"

rendering

saving
the

the

successful,

the award.

salvors

promptitude,

service

property

the

Id.

salvor's

existing

been described by the Supreme Court as
determining

171

at 384.

are

the amount of

Haver,

elements

that

the

determined

there

pending

salvor may enforce its lien on

the salved property by pursuing an in rem action.

faced

386

displayed
(3)

(1)

the labor

salvage

the

rendering
was

The Blackwall,

are:

the

the

exposed;

in

in

service;
rendering

value

of

the

service,

and

(4)

the

risk

incurred

by

impending
(6)

the

Id.

at

peril;

(5)

of

14.

In

the

degree

items salved.

When
becomes

of

Law of

the

from

of

the

of

the
the

which

which the

property

property

Circuit

salvors

from

the

saved;

property

the

Fourth

archaeological

CADG II,

or

securing

value

case,

to

and

court

diminished,
demerit

danger

and

was

added

a

have worked

value

of

the

rescued.
seventh

to protect

wreck

and

the

974 F.2d at 468.

calculating

a

in

the

this

historical

the

salvors

degree

factor:
the

the

a

salvage

equity,

wholly

award,

and

the

forfeited,

salvor."

Id.

the

award

may

according

(quoting W.

Wreck and Salvage

court

§ 218,

at

"be

to

A

admiralty
increased,

the

Marvin,
226

of

merit

or

Treatise

(1858)).

on

The amount

of the award is "primarily a matter of judgment to be exercised"
by

the

court.

Corp. v.

CADG

IV,

56

F.3d

Dean, 171 F.2d 408,

at

411

569

(quoting Waterman

(4th Cir. 1948)).

S.S.

However,

an

award typically cannot exceed the market value of the property;
even

if

it

property
R.M.S.

194,

does,

the

judgment

because

the

action

Titanic,

204

Inc.

(4th Cir.

812 F.2d 243,

246

v.

is

is

against

Wrecked

2002);
(5th Cir.

limited

&

to

the

Abandoned

Allseas Maritime,

the

value

property
Vessel,

S.A.

of

the

itself.
286

F.3d

v. M/V Mimosa,

1987).

B. Grant of Award in Specie
If
"the

no owner comes

salvor

is

normally

forward

to

awarded

claim

its
8

the recovered property,

total

value."

CADG

II,

974

F.2d

at

award,

459.

In

a

case,

the court may sell

the proceeds.

sale

such

R.M.S.

yields

too

little

is

limited

to

However,

if

the court

determining

the property and pay

Titanic,

judgment

after

Inc.,

to

the

286

satisfy

value

determines

of

the

that

salvage

the salvor from

F.3d at

the

the

203-04.

salvor's

If

the

lien,

property.

Id.

"the proceeds

the

at

of

204.

any sale

would clearly be inadequate to pay the salvor its full reward,"
the

court

property

may,

as

instead.

a

matter

of

discretion,

Id. ; see also

Cobb

Wrecked & Abandoned Sailing Vessel,
Fla.

1981)

satisfy

award

Coin Co.

525

title

v.

F. Supp.

to

the

Unidentified,
186,

198

(S.D.

(stating that the salvaged items are normally sold to

the

judgment,

but

if

the

"'proceeds'

of

the

salvor's

find are

items uniquely and intrinsically valuable beyond their

monetary

worth,

award

of

title

property

Haver,

determine
it

the

should

171

be

of

paid.

is

granted,

at

966.

any
See

to

In

R.M.S.

more

only

appropriate").

if

the

the

award,

2d 784,

795

of

the

the

court

and

Titanic,

sale

An

compensate

fairly

sum,

salvage

742 F. Supp.

must

then

Inc.

v.

first

determine
Wrecked

&

(E.D. Va. 2010).

Prejudgment Interest

The
the

specie

insufficient

F.3d

amount

in

be

prove

Abandoned Vessel,
C.

award

should

would

salvor.

how

an

awarding

of

rule

rather

than

Allied

Towing

Corp.,

prejudgment
the
966

interest

exception."
F.2d

820,

in

maritime

U.S.

Fire

Ins.

828

(4th

Cir.

law

"is

Co.

v.

1992).

Typically,
use

of

prejudgment

funds

to

Noritake Co.,
(5th

Cir.

accrues

which

Inc.

Unit

from

interest

claimant

"as compensation for the
was

rightfully

v. M/V Hellenic Champion,

A

the

the

serves

1980).
date

The

of

prejudgment

the

loss,

or

Furniture,
906-07

in

a

Cause

(5th Cir.

a Vessel,

of

1983). However,

award prejudgment

interest,

Civil

when

generally
which

Platoro Ltd.,

&

Apparel,

Mar.,

695

the

Inc. v.

Tackle,

&

F.2d 893,

"peculiar circumstances"

inequitable.

Corp.,

1157 (5th Cir.
III.

at

728

a district court may decline to

render such an award
913 F.2d 1149,

time

Her Cargo,

Salvage,

F.2d 724,

interest

the

salvor became entitled to a salvage award.
Unidentified Remains of

627

entitled."

Orduna

S.A.

v.

would

Zen-Noh Grain

1990).

ANALYSIS

A. Factors in Salvage Award Calculation
There

threshold

is

no

doubt

requirements

that

for

a

RLP

has

salvage

established

award:

voluntary rendering of the salvor's services,
salvage

surface,
IV,

efforts.

placing

56 F.3d at

The

Central

it and its

572-73.

America

cargo

lies

a

the

marine

three

peril,

and success of the

7,200

in maritime

feet

below

the

peril.

See

CADG

RLP's salvage efforts were voluntary,

in

that it owed no contractual duty to perform the salvage. Lastly,
RLP's

16,000

efforts

have

artifacts

been

from

successful

the

wreck

10

in

site

recovering

in

an

approximately

archaeologically

sensitive manner."1 Thus,
is appropriate,
award.

the court must

The

discussed

having determined that a salvage award

seven

now determine the amount of that

Blackwall/Columbus-America

factors

are

in turn.

1. Labor Expended by the Salvors

RLP contracted with Odyssey Marine
to

perform

the

at-sea

research vessel,

vehicle

recovery

operations,

the Odyssey Explorer,

("ROV"),

Zeus.

Together,

the

Odyssey spent an impressive amount of
the 2014 salvage efforts,
has

been

thorough

and

initial planning of

Exploration

the operations

using

Odyssey's

and its remotely operated

professionals
time,

money,

as detailed below.

commendable

("Odyssey")

at

The

every

at

RLP

and

and energy in
labor expended

stage,

from

the

through post-salvage storage

and conservation.

During
seventeen
eighteen

Andrew

recovery

ship

operations,

crew

members,

individuals.

Craig).5

RLP

The

crew

and

Evid.

worked

the
a

Odyssey

Explorer

technical

Hr'g

two,

Ex.

crew

carried
up

to

(Deposition

1A

of

twelve-hour

of

shifts

to

4 These items are listed in the inventories filed with the
See ECF Nos. 129-2 to 129-7, 158-7; ECF Nos. 72, 73 (2014

court.

Case) .

Exhibit
note

The

inventories

12

at

the

were

2016

RLP

also

introduced

Evidentiary

and

Hearing.

admitted

See

as

infra

5.

As previously indicated, the court held an evidentiary
hearing on the Motion for Salvage Award on June 29-30, 2016, and

July 1, 2016.
herein

were

The
all

RLP

evidentiary hearing

admitted

into

evidence
11

exhibits

over

the

referred

course

of

to

that

maintain
Ex.

47

twenty-four-hour

at

members

7. The

worked

artifacts
at

and

ship

operations.

Id. ; RLP

extra

hours

as

daily

reporting.

complete

needed

to

Hr'g

for example,

shifts often lasted longer;

Evid.

crew

finish

RLP

Evid.

processing
Hr'g

starting

photomosaic of
12,500

one

any

recovery

work,

the entire wreck site,

individual

create

high-resolution

detailed

image.

the

Evid.

Hr'g

multibeam

Ex.

7).

sonar

images

Second Report

Pre-disturbance

survey

of

the

team

created

spliced

site,

together

on Activities
90

work

(2014

also

producing

clearing

surveys,
sediment

artifacts,

days at
for a

36.

coins,

the
and

coal

of

2,093

at

from

S.S.

No. 163-1

(RLP Evid.

excavated

2,614

one-by-one.

of

dive

time.

America

Hr'g Ex. 10).

the

ship's

images

keel

S.S.
(RLP

included

and

of

a

the

Id. After

exacting

work

of

collecting

Over the course of 129

RLP

Evid.

lasted over 129 hours.

Central

square

hearing.
Likewise,
evidentiary hearing.

the

the

to

the crew performed eighty-three dives,

hours

The longest dive

Activities

commenced

and ingots,

the wreck site,

total

crew

at

Case)

topography of the wreck site and surrounding seafloor.
site

a

composed of approximately

Central America Shipwreck Site at 1, ECF No.

at

47

7.

Before

the

Ex.

meters

of

testimony

12

Shipwreck

Hr'g

wreck

cited

47

Fifth Report on
Site

at

During these dives,
the

Ex.

site,

herein

1,

the crew

moving

is

ECF

from

1,307

the

cubic

meters

RLP Evid.

of

sediment

to

reach

additional

2014

and

of

treasure.

Hr'g Ex. 4 7 at 36.

RLP spent approximately $7.6

the

items

at-sea

recovery

conservation

of

million

operations

the

salvaged

in direct

and

expenses on

post-recovery

items.

RLP

storage

Evid.

Hr'g

Exs. 24-33.6 The court recognizes the magnitude of resources and
manpower

2014.

devoted

to

the

salvage

of

the

Central

America

since

In determining the amount of an appropriate salvage award,

the labor expended by RLP weighs greatly in its favor.
2.
The
Promptitude,
Skill,
and
Energy
Rendering the Service and Saving the Property

Recovering
of

treasure

the Atlantic Ocean,

sediment,

located over

a

mile

Displayed

below

the

unquestionably

assembled

a

highly

recovery operations.
marine

salvage,

numismatics,

among

surface

and covered with 150 years of accumulated

requires

great

skill.

As

with

initial recovery operations beginning in the late 1980s,

again

in

experienced

team

It gathered experts
geology,

other

to

in

engineering,

disciplines.

A

key

perform

marine

RLP has

the

2014

archaeology,

conservation,
step

its

and

in assembling

these professionals was RLP's thorough selection process to find

a partner

to perform

the

at-sea operations.

See RLP

Evid.

Hr'g

On July 14, 2016, RLP submitted amended Exhibits 24 and
correct an error in the invoices submitted by Sconset
Marine. ECF Nos.
225,
225-3
(Exhibit 24),
225-4
(Exhibit 27,

27,

to

part 1), 225-5 (Exhibit 27, part 2). The $7.6 million total
cited above
is
the updated
total,
as
provided
in amended
Exhibit

24.

ECF

No.

225-3.
13

Ex.

47

at

2-4.

It

ultimately

selected

best able to perform the required work,

Odyssey

as

the

company

given Odyssey's deep-sea

archaeology experience and technological capabilities.7
Odyssey

brought

equipment

to

the

designed

for

experienced

salvage

with

and

equipment,

video

recovery

efforts.

deep-sea

operations,

Ex.

6).

sophisticated

ROV

is

specially

and

positioning

recovery

technology,

deep-sea

Report

America Shipwreck Site at 1,
Hr'g

Zeus

survey

and

First

The

and

archaeological

advanced

tools.

personnel

on

excavation

Activities

ECF No. 21-1

These recovery tools

photographic
and

at

artifact

S.S.

(2014 Case)

(RLP Evid.

include two manipulator arms,

a limpet suction device that attaches

to a manipulator arm,

the proprietary Sediment Removal and Filtration System.
at

1-2;

RLP

portions

heritage

of

Evid.
the

items

Hr'g
wreck

in

an

Ex.

3.

site

Central

Operating

and

the

collect

ROV

gold

archaeologically-sensitive

See

and

id.

to

excavate

and

cultural

manner

required

great skill and dedication by the crew.
When
specific

these
items

constructed
shop.

See

existing
or

tools

remove

new

tools,

Third

Report

not

obstacles,

using
on

were

the

sufficient

the

crew

onboard

Activities

at

to

collect

designed

and

mechanical/welding

S.S.

Central

America

In fact, Michael Anderson, who the court qualified as an
expert in salvage operations, opined that RLP could not have
selected a better company for the Central America operations.
Testimony of Michael Anderson at RLP Evid. Hr'g (June 30, 2016).
14

Shipwreck Site at

Evid.

Hr'g

Ex. 4

spatula-type tool
experimented
find

the

Coins,

various

gold ingots,

taken

to

storage

a

way

an

by

the

Room,"

laboratory.

America

Ex. 6) ;

Fourth

the

and

additional

RLP

fabricated

Report

See

Room

short-term storage.

First

at

coal

by

and

material

cultural
van,

heritage

or

"ARC

and

sea,
from

the

to
the

ROV,

the

preservation

composition.8

Report

at

3-4,

Activities
130-1
the

at

ARC

Van,

for

11

(RLP

S.S.

Hr'g Ex.

provided

on Activities

at

to

at

Evid.

Central

conservation

were

secure

transported

Activities

(RLP Evid.

initial

Report

on

artifacts

Van,"

they could be

Site

and

documentation,

Explorer

cataloguing

First

on

while

a

Hr'g Ex. 47 at 20-21.

Odyssey

until

Shipwreck

Coin

8);

and other precious metal items were

Shipwreck Site at 3, ECF No.
areas,

crew

concreted

artifact's

archaeological

Central

move

extensive

and conservation,

land-based

the

constructed

to

the

jewelry,

"Coin

the

tools,

onboard

determined

to

example,

Hr'g Ex.

to collect a sextant without damaging it,

underwent

taken

9.

For

(RLP Evid.

Supp. at 6; RLP Evid.

brought

process,

110-1

effective

keel. Suppl. Mem.

artifacts

ECF No.

at

with

most

Once

1-3,

a

S.S.

Hr'g

America
9).

Both

tools

for

work,

S.S.

and

Central

8 The record of the artifact's provenance begins when the
artifact

is

located on

the ocean floor,

as

the

ROV transmits

its

position
and
activities,
and
personnel
can
record
their
observations,
to create a detailed log of each dive.
First
Report on Activities at S.S.
Central America Shipwreck Site
at 3, ECF No. 21-1 (2014 Case) (RLP Evid. Hr'g Ex. 6). The dives
were also photographed and filmed. Id.
15

America Shipwreck Site at
was

3-4

(RLP Evid.

individually evaluated to determine

Hr'g Ex.
the

6).

Each item

necessary procedure

to document and preserve the artifact while on board the ship,
task requiring substantial

knowledge

and outlay of

time

by

a

the

archaeologists and conservator. See id. at 4.
RLP

contracted

("NCS")

to

ashore.

NCS

with

Numismatic

store and preserve
was

custodian at

appointed

the

by

the

Conservation

items once

this

recommendation of

court
RLP,

to

Services,

LLC

they were brought
be

the

substitute

which exercised care

in

selecting and recommending a substitute custodian with suitable
experience,
June 12,

facilities,

2014,

supervision

ECF

of

and

No.

RLP,

61

capabilities.
(2014

continues

See

Case).

to

store

NCS,

and

Order

of

under

the

preserve

the

recovered items in accordance with the conservation requirements
of

this

court

specialists.

and

the

recommendations

of

appropriate

Proposed Findings at 17 & n.l.

Although

almost

16,000

items

were

recovered,

RLP

and

its

witnesses warrant that no items were damaged during the recovery
operations.
Craig,
at 3
a

Neil

Dobson,

and

Craig

(citing Testimony of Andrew

Mullen);

RLP

Evid.

Hr'g

Ex. 44

(noting that no coins or ingots had been damaged) . This is

notable

the

Proposed Findings at 7-8

items

surface,

achievement,
from

the

considering

seabed

using

the

the

challenges

ROV,

bringing

processing them aboard a ship at sea,
16

in collecting
them

to

the

and transporting

them

to

court

more

permanent

recognizes

the

storage

care

of saving the property,

facilities

and expertise

once

on

land.

required at

all

The

stages

as well as RLP's continued commitment to

preserving the recovered items.

Considering

the

immense

level

and preserving the artifacts,
a high level of

factor

thus

of

difficulty

in

retrieving

the court finds that RLP has shown

skill and energy in its salvage operations.

weighs

in

RLP's

favor

in determining

the

This

amount of

the salvage award.
3. The Value of the Property Employed by the
the Danger to Which Such Property Was Exposed

As
at-sea

salvage

equipment

and

RLP contracted with Odyssey to conduct

noted above,

Salvors,

the

operations.

capable

of

Odyssey

successfully

had

state-of-the-art

performing

the

desired

recovery operations.9 The Odyssey Explorer had an insured value
of

$1.5

million at

its attendant
RLP Evid.
Supp.
the

at

the

time of

equipment,

Hr'g Ex.

1A

the expeditions,

had an insured value

and Zeus,

of

$6.5

(Deposition of Andrew Craig);

with

million.

Suppl.

Mem.

4. The court accepts these values as representative of

specialized

operations.

equipment

Further,

the

inherent to extended time

9 While

the

Odyssey

necessary

Odyssey
at sea,

to

perform

Explorer
including

Explorer

was

these

salvage

the

dangers

faced

two hurricanes

originally

built

that

as

a

factory trawler, it underwent a rebuild in 1994 to specially
equip it for deep sea exploration and recovery expeditions. RLP
Evid. Hr'g Ex. 2.
17

passed over the wreck site,
dives,

was

repeatedly

temperatures,

and

and Zeus,

imperiled

floor currents

in performing over eighty

by

the

present

high
over

pressure,

a

mile

cold

below

the

surface. See RLP Evid. Hr'g Ex. 47 at 9.10
However,

the

because RLP did not own the equipment used during

salvage operations,

this

factor is

others. See R.M.S. Titanic,
information
salvaging
RLP's

does

the

Inc., 742 F.

exhibit

wreck

the

site,

less

important than the

Supp. 2d at 799." The

technological

and,

to

that

challenges

extent,

it

of

weighs

in

favor.

4.
The
Risk
Incurred by
the
Salvors
Property from the Impending Peril

This
safety
U.S.

factor

and
(10

the

Opinion
Fourth

to

at

savior."

Circuit
of

IV,

Central

The cost

within Blackwall

the

salvors'

property.

See

The

more

peril

56

F.3d

at

the

award

risks

America,

572.

incurred
given

Blackwall,

the

this

77

when

imperiled

However,

in

the

personal

importance

likewise

salvage

use of heavy equipment,

10 The risk

Securing

to

carries

previous

a

its

in

its

case,

the

during

salvage

distance

and number of days spent at

from
sea.

to which the salvor's property was exposed is

discussed further under

11

It

recognized
the

risk

immediate

CADG
a

the

their

14.

vessel's

affirming

operations
shore,

risk

Wall)

"distressed
attempted

examines

in

the next

to RLP of
Factor

factor.

renting

1.
18

this

equipment

is subsumed

Id.

Those

same

operations,

risks

were

incurred during the

2014

recovery

although the 2014 operations lasted for fewer days

than the efforts addressed in 1995 by the Fourth Circuit in CADG
IV.

Nevertheless,

the

2014

crew spent

a

significant

time at sea, most of it 160 miles from shore.
medical

take

amount

of

Of note, obtaining

treatment for any severe injuries that might occur would

hours.

equipment

See

when

id.

the

(noting

distance

the

from

risk
shore

of

dealing

meant

with

medical

heavy

treatment

was hours away) .12
As

discussed above,

RLP

did

not

own

the

equipment

used

in

the salvage efforts. While its risk of property damage therefore
appears

to

have

been

limited,

participating in the operations,

the

two

RLP

employees

Craig Mullen and Robert Evans,

faced personal risk during their time at sea.13 Accordingly, this
factor weighs in RLP's favor, but it is accorded limited weight.

12 One crewmember did suffer an injury to his arm, and a
resulting infection,
that required an airlift delivery of
antibiotics to the Odyssey Explorer. See RLP Evid. Hr'g Ex. 1A
(Deposition of Andrew Craig); Testimony of Craig Mullen at RLP
Evid. Hr'g (June 29, 2016) .
13

There

is

no

evidence

before

the

court

that

RLP

assumed

liability for damage to Odyssey property or personal injury
incurred by Odyssey employees during recovery operations. Thus,
only risks to the personal safety of the RLP personnel aboard
the Odyssey Explorer bear particular weight in assessing this
factor.

See R.M.S.

Titanic,

Inc.,
19

742 F. Supp.

2d at 800.

5.

The Value of the Property Saved

Currently before the court is the property recovered during
the

2014

types.

at-sea

First,

photographs

operations,

and

photographic

(collectively,

gold dust

and mineral

When

coins

of

its

the

and

the salved property."
1927).

RLP

$1,034,625,

Manley,

valued

Ex. 44

at

20.

recovered

award,
che

is

The

ingots,

The

valuation

gold

at

$48,215,425.

If

and

gold

value
the

the worth of

759-60

(4th

accompanying

2, and Dwight

RLP
all

court

the

who valued the

35 at

of

and

"gold").

factors,

and

$47,180,800.

coins,

the

16 F.2d 757,
reports

paper

RLP collected

Blackwall

Hr'g Ex.

estimated

two

Evid.
the

grants

Hr'g

property
a

salvage

the ceiling for such an award is the fair market value of

artifacts

at 204;

and

gold.

Allseas Maritime,

Mr.

Alasko,

$1,034,625,

used

fair

value

Evid.

Second,

(collectively,

under

RLP Evid.

the

jewelry,

Richard-Raymond Alasko,

total

then

copper

into

cultural heritage,

"a rough approximation of

submitted

artifacts at
who

gold

Rand v. Lockwood,

testimony by two experts:

separated

items of

"artifacts").

analysis

court need only determine

be

memorabilia,

form gold,

silver

performing

Cir.

can

RLP recovered various

documents

other

which

market

Hr'g

Ex.

who

a

See
S.A.,

valued

sales
of

35

of

2-3.

Titanic,

Inc.,

286

F.3d

812 F.2d at 246.
the

artifacts

comparison

each

at

R.M.S.

the

The
20

approach

588

at

to

recovered

valuation

a

total

of

determine

the

artifacts.

RLP

assumes

that

the

artifacts
through

will

public

sales will

be

sold

sale.

target

Id.

experts

cultural

artifact

examination,

Mr.

identified
cultural

artifact

Alasko

differences

categories

facility.

sales

on

the

a

lot,

artifact

working with
artifacts

—

photographic

first examined each

Id.

comparison

of

and

at

team of

based

as

for historic maritime

and his

sales,

condition,

the

assumes

photographs

storage

than

136. Mr. Alasko,

four

6.

From

consultant
from

relevant

a

factors

this

experts1"'

database

of

such as

the

and character of each artifact. See id.

5.15 To arrive at a final

artifact,

further

and paper documents —

appropriate

provenance,
at 3,

the

the

items,

jewelry,

at

It

Id. at 5,

for

heritage

memorabilia,

at 5.

rather

the appropriate markets

and cultural properties.
consultant

individually,

comparable

in the items.

individual

sales
Id.

at

were
3,

valuation

adjusted

for

for each

discernible

6.

Mr. Manley valued the gold at a total of $47,180,800.

RLP

Evid. Hr'g Ex. 44 at 20. Of the approximately 15,000 gold items

14 These consultant experts were Jacob Fish (cultural
heritage items), Brooks Rice (cultural heritage items) , Kathleen
Lamb (photographs and photographic memorabilia), William Milne
(jewelry), and Fred Holabird (paper documents). RLP Evid. Hr'g
Ex.

35 at 9,

57,

62,

89.

16 The comparable sales database was compiled from a survey
of the market for cultural properties,
properties
retrieved
from
notable

in general,
shipwreck

and cultural
sites,
in

particular. RLP Evid. Hr'g Ex. 35 at 6, 136-39. The appraisers
also surveyed sales results for historic artifacts from the
California

Gold

Rush

era.

Id.

at

13 9.

sales from 1987 through June 10, 2016.
21

The

database

Id. at 138.

contained

recovered,

the

majority

1,600 ounces of

are

only

process

in

to

and

gold dust

removes

this

total

and mineral

condition

foreign

the

will

be

gold

value

after

deposits;

assumes

and

professionally

comes

form gold.

the Sheldon Coin Grading

valuation of
items

the

marketable

that

according

from

1,956 San Francisco Mint gold coins,

forty-five gold ingots,

of

they
they

Scale.

takes

curated

are
are

Id.

into
and

Id.

The coins

curated,
then

a

graded

Mr. Manley's

account
graded

that

the

prior

to

marketing and sale. Id.17
Like Mr. Alasko,

Mr.

Manley first personally inspected all

of the gold — namely, the gold ingots, the gold dust and mineral

form gold,
storage
grade

and

the gold,
Id.

at

2.

assigned

to

each

facility.

to

silver,

be

He

and
then

coin,

copper

coins -

market

research,

including

the

determined

the probable

using

Sheldon

the

Grading Scale,-18 and from the type and grade of coin,
used

at

past

sales

Coin

he then

information,

to

16 The Sheldon Coin Grading Scale is a seventy-point scale
used to assess the numismatic quality of a coin. RLP Evid. Hr'g
Ex. 44 at 10.
It is "used by virtually all coin grading

companies

and

valuation of

is

the

essential

numismatics."

17 Accordingly,

reference

system

used

Hr'g Ex.

18

See

the

Id.

the valuation does not include a separate

item for the cost of performing the necessary curation.
Evid.

in

See RLP

44 at 20.

supra

note

16.

Although

the

coins

are

currently

un-curated,
for the purposes of
the valuation,
Mr. Manley
determined the most likely grade of each coin after its future
curation.

RLP Evid.

Hr'g Ex.

44 at 3, 10.
22

arrive at a

also

fair market

considered

historic

gold

evaluated,

value

recent

sales

ingots

the

treasure

the coin.

and

and

Id.

current

coins

together with his

and selling

for

3,

10-11.

He

offerings

sales

comparable

experience

recovered

at

of

to

the

in curating,

from

the

coins

marketing,

Central America

in

the 1988-1991 salvage efforts. Id. at 3-4.19
Specifically,

rarity,

size,

condition.

the

fineness

Id.

at

7.

were also compared to

the

Central

at 3,

7.

America

The

ingots

average spot price
research"

gold

from

ingots

(that

is,

were

valued

purity

of

based

gold

and

of

sales

also

of

valued

gold during

January

and

the ingots

ingots previously recovered from

other

were

their

content),

Based on these characteristics,
sales of

on

2016,

"approximately $1,250 per ounce";

historic

with

reference

the course
to

May

ingots.

of

[Mr.

2016,

to

Id.
"the

Manley's]

which

was

then that average "spot" price

of gold was adjusted by a multiple of between two and seventeen,

depending on the ingot,

to account for the rarity of California

Gold Rush ingots. Id. at 8. The gold dust and mineral form gold
were also valued based on the

"spot"

The

to account

value

was

adjusted

upward

price of gold.
for

the

Id. at 10.

marketing

of

Mr. Manley was involved in the inspection,
purchase,
marketing, and sale of more than ninety-five percent (95%) of
the ingots and coins recovered from these earlier efforts. RLP
Evid. Hr'g Ex. 44 at 1.
23

small

quantities

of

this

material

approximately half a gram.

As noted above,
of

the value of

Society

of

is

experience

an

units

of

the court must make a "rough approximation"

the salvaged property.

significant

Mr. Alasko

souvenir-sized

Id.

In assessing the reliability of
the

as

of

Accredited

Appraisers

the

16 F.2d at

appraisals,

Mr.

Alasko

Senior

with

Rand,

the court notes

and

Mr.

Manley.

of

the

American

Appraiser

approximately

759-60.

forty-four

years

of

experience as a practicing appraiser. RLP Evid. Hr'g Ex. 34 at 1.
He

has

testified

support,

as

an

expert

witness,

in cases dating back to

he was appointed by the court.

1982,

or

provided

litigation

including cases in which

Id. at 7-10.

Likewise, Mr. Manley

has been professionally involved in numismatics since 1984,
a

member

of

twenty-five
involved

the

Id.

the

evidentiary

The

court

reliable,

Professional

years.

with

since 1998.

the

RLP

treasure

Further,

hearing

considers

while

Evid.

Numismatic

Hr'g

recovered

about

their

their

the

appropriate

at

1.

the

for

He

has

Central

over

been

America

testified in detail

processes

valuation

methods

difficulty

valuing the recovered items and the

Accordingly,

from

both appraisers

recognizing

for gold and silver,

Ex. 44

Guild

and

and
to

at

conclusions.
be

sound

associated

and

with

fluctuating market not only

but for the artifacts.

the

court

approximation

of

FINDS
the
24

fair

$48,215,425

to

be

an

market

of

all

the

value

items — gold and artifacts — recovered during RLP's 2014 salvage

operations.2<
6. The Degree of Danger to the Salvaged Property

While the vessel
traditional

salvage

here was not
rescue

in immediate peril,

situation,

the

Fourth

as

Circuit

in a
has

previously recognized in this case that saving property from the
bottom

of

the

ocean

can

the ultimate peril."
less

certain

of

be

considered

CADG IV,

being

"the

ultimate

rescue

56 F.3d at 573. Property "is far

recovered

once

it

has

sunk,"

posing

"danger to its continued existence and utility as property."

This court now opines
operations
greater

certainly

degree

describing
RLP's

was

in

first

advancements
issue here.

that

its

than
1995

recovery

the property salved during

exposed

the

Thus,

to

this

danger,

property

the

Fourth

opinion.

operations

in technology,

from

It
in

for RLP

took

a

Id.

the 2014

perhaps

to

a

Circuit

was

twenty-five years

from

1988-1991,

and

to recover

the property at

the salvaged items were at

significant

a significant risk

of remaining valueless at the bottom of the ocean.
In

the

2014

operations,

items from the bottom of
Hr'g

$47

Ex.

million,

valuable
of

12.

The

gold

RLP

salvaged

the ocean.

recovered has

evidencing

the

"value

Mem.

approximately

Supp.

at 1;

RLP Evid.

an estimated value

that

our

16,000

of over

society attributes

This figure
is also properly representative of
the
services performed by RLP in its 2014 salvage efforts

the Central America.
25

to gold,"
interest

assuming
in

it."

individuals

CADG IV,

heritage

items,

historic

interest

shipwreck.

56

F.3d

themselves

and

are
at

this

"to

573.

worth

provide

Accordingly,

able

over

a

Further,

$1

human

factor

assert

a property

the cultural

million,

are

connection

supports

a

to

liberal

of

the

salvage

award.

7.

The

the
the

Degree

to

Historical
Items

Which

and

the

Salvors

Archaeological

Have

Worked

Value

of

to

the

Protect

Wreck

and

Salved

Throughout

its

recovery

operations,

RLP

has

worked

diligently to protect the historical and archaeological value of

the wreck

site and the items salved.

testified that
"significant
recovery

The

Receiver,

the archaeological sensitivity of
consideration"

operations.

in

Testimony

planning
of

Mr.

the site was a

and

Kane

Ira Kane,21

executing

at

RLP

Evid.

the
Hr'g

(July 1, 2016) .

RLP's efforts
began

with

multibeam

Second

the

ROV's

video

mapping

sonar

Report

Site at 1

to protect

imagery

on

(RLP Evid.
activities

First

wreck
and

its

using

Report

on

high

at

Hr'g Ex.
on

site

a

Activities

documentation,

developed.

the

the historical value of

dives,

data

Activities

21 See supra note 1.
26

Central

through

photomosaic.

America

both
See

Shipwreck

RLP created a detailed log of

many
a

detail,

resolution

S.S.

7).

in

the wreck

including

photo

and

logging

system

Odyssey

at

Central

America

S.S.

Shipwreck
effort,

Site
all

at

3

(RLP

items

Evid.

Hr'g

recovered

including when and where
physical

descriptions,

at 3-4.

Further,

have

6).

been

as

the

part

of

logged,

and

See

id.

and

directed all ROV movements involving inspection,

excavation,

and

recovery of

items,

or any other disturbances

the wreck site.

See

3.

court

at

The

accepts

the

duty

size.

supervised

id.

on

this

the wreck and their

material

archaeologist

As

thoroughly

they were found at

such

the

Ex.

to

veracity

of

offered by multiple experts,

and thus concludes,

operations

in

manner,

were

performed

an

the

testimony

that the at-sea

archaeologically

sensitive

adhering to industry best practices.

Further,

as

salvor-in-possession,

RLP

is

charged

by

the

court with the care and preservation of

the artifacts and gold

pending

and

this

the outcome

role.

Odyssey

After

personnel

condition.

As

of

this proceeding,

collecting

worked

discussed

items

it

the

stabilize

to

from

and

above

in

Part

where

the archaeologists

further documentation of
conservation and storage
taken ashore.

were

preserve

3-4

preserved

(RLP Evid.
by NCS

and
27

Hr'g

the

and

their
Odyssey

the Coin Room and

importantly,

the

items

First Report on Activities at S.S.

Shipwreck Site at
items

preserve

RLP

and conservator performed

the items and,
to

ably filled

wreck,

III.A.2,

Explorer is equipped with on-board facilities,
the ARC Van,

has

Ex.

6).

"first-aid"

until

they were

Central America
Once

ashore,

specialized conservators.

the
See,

e.g.,

Order of

conservation

October

of

23,

paper

Conservation Center,

2014,

ECF No.

artifacts

by

the

171
New

the

salvaged

significant

England

the

Document

at the direction of NCS).

Because RLP requests an in specie award,
to

(authorizing

items,

resources

it

to

is

the

no

surprise

granting it

that

preservation of

RLP

the

has

title

devoted

artifacts

and

gold. The same can be said for the detailed data compiled by the
crew,

as

this

verification

of

provenance

market price for the artifacts and gold.

for

protecting

wreck and the
to

which

of

the

court

done

record of

the

finds

conservation
Central

has

wreck

preserving

historical

and

recovered items

RLP

historical

the

site

so.

its

archaeological

has

operations

itself

and

issue,

worked

and
the

the

RLP's

efforts

America,

and

data

with

items

the

items

to

salved,

the

of

only the

the

extent

preserve

the

integrity

recovered,

thus

value of both.

The

preservation,

collection,

regards

value

to

the

the motive

physical

historical and archaeological
that

increase

Nonetheless,

is not at
RLP

will

and

wreck

weigh

of

strongly

the

S.S.

in

RLP's

favor in determining the salvage award.
B.

Amount

A

of

Award

salvor seeking a

salvage

award must

faith and with honesty of purpose"
hands.

CADG

potential

IV,

56

reductions

F.3d

to

at

the

569

and come
(citation

salvage
28

award

"act

in entire

good

to court with clean
omitted).

based

on

Here,

bad

no

faith

have been suggested,
after

weighing

discussed

and the court

the

above

in

finds none.22 Accordingly,

Blackwall/Columbus-America

Part

III.A,

the

courts

factors

FINDS

entitled to a salvage award of ONE HUNDRED PERCENT

as

that

is

RLP

(100%)

of the

fair market value of the items recovered in the 2014 operations.
C.

Prejudgment Interest

RLP

also

expenses.

requests

Mem.

Supp.

prejudgment

at

interest

on

its

salvage

4. The court acknowledges that awarding

prejudgment interest is the general rule in admiralty,

but finds

that

call

the

"peculiar

circumstances"

deviation from that rule.

present

See Orduna S.A.,

here

for

913 F.2d at 1157.

RLP

recognizes that it cannot receive an award greater than the fair
market

value

of

will

not

interest
of

one

hundred

property.
salvage

be

as

of
a

salvaged

awarded,

percent

See Suppl.

award

expressed

the

the

property,

if

it

(100%)

of

Supp.

at

Mem.
full

percentage

market
of

the

and

concedes

that

is granted a salvage award
the

19.
value

value

of

the

Because RLP
of

market

recovered

is granted a

the

salvaged

value

rather

22 The preservation and conservation of

items,
than

the artifacts

a

to

maximize the salvage award, if granted in the future, is not
"bad faith" or a reflection on "honesty of purpose." See supra
Part III.A.7. There is no guarantee of a future salvage award,
and RLP, after an initial "bump" with the court, see Mem. Op. &
Order of July 9, 2014, at 6-7, 21-25, ECF No. 92, did not try to
bypass the court's authority to judicially approve and legally
control the 2014 at-sea salvage operations, or to grant this
salvage award thereafter. The bottom line is that ultimately RLP
"followed

the

rules."
29

specific dollar amount,

DENIED.

The

sufficient

liberal

to

temporary

the

request

salvage

compensate

loss

of

the

award

the

use

for prejudgment

of

granted

salvors,
funds

in

interest

this

case

including

employed

to

for

is

is

any

finance

the

1. The court

can

salvage efforts.
D.

Payment of Award

RLP requests

an in specie award.

grant such an award,

Mot.

if it finds that

at

"the proceeds of any sale

would clearly be inadequate to pay the salvor its full reward,"

R.M.S. Titanic,

Inc.,

"uniquely

intrinsically

and

286 F.3d at 204, or the salvaged items are

worth." Cobb Coin Co.,
Here,
RLP

for

a

its

525 F.

judicial
salvage

sale

valuable

beyond

would be

efforts.

The

inadequate

appraised

by

this

court

assumed

these

marketed

to

appropriate

buyers,

through

houses and numismatic dealers,
the

Evid.

items

Hr'g

The

court
See,
can

Ex.

separate

different

be

35

be

at

that

Suppl.

packaged

and that

promoted.

11,

that

See

of

artifacts
not

items

need

Mem.

Supp.

at

sold

as

to

16.
a

30

reward
values

items

would

experienced

be
For

Part

Hr'g Ex.

and

necessarily

the

and

rare

fully
market

fair

supra

RLP Evid.

do

to

be

auction

the historic provenance

138;

categories

audiences

agrees
e.g.,

would

monetary

Supp. at 198.

accepted

of

their

RLP

44

3,

20.

appeal

to

gold

at

overlap,

marketed
example,

novelty

III.A.5;

item

and

the

individually.
the
for

gold dust
a

broader

audience,
willing

while

the

gold

to pay hundreds

Hr'g Ex.

44

graded,

at 4,

thirty-six

Marshal

months

is

resources

of

Id.

to

need

could

at

20.

equipped

perform

experts are

experienced with

efforts required,

for

the

market

gold.24

grading,

and
the

The

judicial sale would be

United

the

pre-sale

States

necessary
processes,

RLP and its team

appropriate sales channels

Moreover,

salvaged

curated,

conservation and marketing

marketing

of

be

the

and understand

and

value

to

RLP Evid.

the

artifacts

curation,

See

with

these

collectors

take eighteen to

given the above considerations.23 In contrast,
of

to

dollars.

the coins

properly

expertise

marketed

this process

complete.

not

are

thousands

Further,

and

to

simply

and

of

8-10.

and marketed,

ingots

given

necessary

items,

inadequate

to

the

the
obtain

court

to pay RLP

additional
the

FINDS

its

full

fair

that

a

salvage

award.

Accordingly,
salvaged

in

the

the
2014

court

GRANTS

recovery

inventories filed with the court.

RLP

title

operations,

as

to

the

listed

items
in

the

See RLP Evid. Hr'g Ex. 12.

23 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Supplemental
Rules for Admiralty and Maritime Claims Rule E(9) (B) , sales
property are to be made by the marshal or a deputy marshal.

2""

of

In determining the liberal salvage award granted here,

the court considers the additional
incur to perform this work.
31

direct

expenses

RLP

will

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth in this Opinion,
GRANTS

RLP a

(100%)

of

salvage award in the amount of

the

fair

market

2014 recovery operations.
Further,
sale

the

would

reward"

court

court

FINDS

clearly

be

in this case.

further FINDS

value

of

ONE HUNDRED PERCENT

items

recovered

in

the

The court DENIES prejudgment interest.
that

R.M.S.

proceeds

"the

inadequate

that

the

the court hereby

to

pay

Titanic,

the

amount

the

Inc.,

of

of

any

[judicial]

salvor

its

full

286 F.3d at 204.

RLP's

The

salvage award can

only be satisfied by the court conveying title to the artifacts.
Accordingly,

the

court

GRANTS

RLP

title

to

the

artifacts

recovered in the 2014 salvage operations.
The
counsel

Clerk
for

the

is

DIRECTED

to

send

a

copy

of

this

Opinion

to

Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.25
Isl

Rebecca Beach Smith

_PJ(Xr- Chief Judge
REBECCA

BEACH

SMITH

CHIEF JUDGE

August

3
31.,

2016

An Index of
this Opinion
purposes and made a part hereof.
32

is

attached

for

reference

INDEX

I.

Procedural History

1

II.

Admiralty Law of Salvage

6

A.

Determination of Salvage Award

6

B.

Grant of Award in Specie

8

C.

Prejudgment Interest

9

III. Analysis
A.

10

Factors in Salvage Award Calculation

10

1.

Labor Expended by the Salvors

11

2.

The Promptitude, Skill, and Energy Displayed in
Rendering the Service and Saving the Property

13

3.

The Value of the Property Employed by the
Salvors, and the Danger to Which Such Property Was
Exposed
17

4.

The Risk Incurred by the Salvors in Securing the
Property from the Impending Peril

18

5.

The Value of the Property Saved

20

6.

The Degree of Danger to the Salvaged Property

25

7.

The Degree to Which the Salvors Have Worked to
Protect the Historical and Archaeological Value of
the Wreck

the

Items

Award

Salved

26

B.

Amount

C.

Prejudgment Interest

29

D.
IV.

of

and

28

Payment of Award

30

Conclusion

32

33