Holmes et al v. Yct. Nova et al

Filing 83

ORDER granting in part Defendants Yachtfish Marine, Inc. and Stephen Yadvish's 51 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

ROBERT HOLMES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9

Case No. C16-1422RSL
v.

10
11

YCT. NOVA, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

This matter comes before the Court on “Defendants’ Stephen Yadvish and
Yachtfish Marine, Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.” Dkt. # 51. Plaintiffs
initiated this litigation to obtain possession of two vessels that were, at the time, being
held by defendants, to recover damages allegedly caused by Yachtfish Marine, Inc.’s
conversion of the vessels, and to clear any and all maritime liens asserted by defendants
against the vessels. Defendants argue that certain claims and issues have been finally
resolved against plaintiffs and seek partial summary judgment based on a jury verdict in a
related state court proceeding. Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and
exhibits submitted by the parties,1 the Court finds as follows:

23
24
25
26

1

These issues can be resolved on the papers submitted. Defendants’ request for
oral argument is DENIED.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1

1
2

A. First Cause of Action: Supplemental Rule D Possessory Relief
Defendants have turned over possession of the vessels to plaintiffs. The first claim

3

for relief is therefore DISMISSED as moot.

4

B. Second Cause of Action: Conversion

5

In the state court proceeding, plaintiff Marquis International Holdings, LLC

6

(“MIH”) asserted a counterclaim for conversion against defendants Yadvish and

7

Yachtfish Marine, Inc. (“YMI”) regarding their use and possession of the vessel

8

M SQUARED.2 Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, a final judgment forecloses

9

successive litigation of the same claim between the same parties. Garity v. APWU Nat’l

10

Labor Org., 828 F.3d 848, 855 (9th Cir. 2016). The doctrine applies when a claim is

11

raised or could have been raised in the prior action. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d

12

953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). Here, the conversion claim against Yadvish and YMI was

13

actually raised and then abandoned. There is no explanation for why plaintiffs failed to

14

preserve the issue through trial: they may not revive the claim at this point. Plaintiffs’

15

conversion claim regarding the vessel M SQUARED is therefore DISMISSED.

16

A conversion claim against defendant Clark would not be barred by res judicata.

17

The claim was not asserted in the state court proceeding and there is no indication that

18

Clark had asserted a lien or otherwise wilfully interfered with plaintiffs’ possessory rights

19

until after the deadline for adding parties in the state action had passed.3 Regardless,

20

plaintiffs have not asserted a claim for conversion against Clark in this litigation. The

21

Second Cause of Action is specifically directed at defendant YMI and may be pursued

22
2

23
24
25
26

Plaintiffs’ did not assert a conversion claim regarding the vessel NOVA in the prior
proceeding.
3

In reply, defendants point out that Holmes knew Clark had loaned Yadvish money to
work on the M SQUARED as early as September 29, 2015. Dkt. # 58 at 3. The existence of a
debt is not conversion, however, and defendants make no attempt to show that a conversion
claim could have been asserted against Clark before November 25, 2015.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2

1

only against that defendant and only with regards to the NOVA.

2

C. Third Cause of Action: Supplementary Rule D Declaratory Relief

3

In this litigation, plaintiffs seek a declaration that Holmes is the sole owner of the

4

vessel NOVA and that MIH is the sole owner of the vessel M SQUARED, free and clear

5

of any maritime lien asserted by defendants Yadvish, YMI, and/or Clark. In their motion,

6

defendants argued that this claim is barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion and judicial

7

estoppel. They subsequently withdrew their motion on these grounds. Dkt. # 58 at 4.

8

D. Damage Award

9

To the extent that a conversion claim can be pursued in this litigation, a monetary

10

remedy in the form of damages may be appropriate. Defendants’ request for an order

11

barring plaintiffs from seeking damages in this lawsuit is DENIED.

12

E. Issue Preclusion

13

The state court jury determined that there was no joint venture agreement or

14

contract between Yadvish/YMI and Holmes/MIH, but that Yadvish/YMI defrauded

15

Holmes, resulting in damages of $66,196.50. These damages correspond to the amount

16

Holmes paid to transport the M SQUARED from Florida to Washington. The jury found

17

that there were no fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations made to MIH.

18

Defendants argue that these findings necessarily resolved two factual issues:

19

(1) whether defendants agreed to perform work on the M SQUARED at a reduced hourly

20

rate and (2) whether defendants agreed to cap the fees and expenses incurred in repairing

21

the M SQUARED. The jury was not asked either of these questions, and the special

22

verdict form is too vague to require the inferences defendants would like to draw. It is

23

entirely possible that the jury found that Yadvish and/or YMI lied to Holmes regarding

24

the terms on which the repair work would be done, causing Holmes to purchase the

25

M SQUARED and have it shipped to Washington. While that is not the only inference

26
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 3

1

one could glean from the special verdict form, it is a reasonable explanation for the

2

damage award at issue here. The Court will not attach or attribute a meaning to the jury’s

3

verdict that is not compelled by answers provided, especially when other explanations are

4

at least as plausible.

5
6

For all of the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment

7

is GRANTED in part to the extent that (a) plaintiffs’ claims for possessory relief are

8

DISMISSED as moot and (b) plaintiffs are barred from pursuing a conversion claim

9

regarding the vessel M SQUARED. The motion is DENIED in all other respects.

10
11

DATED this 6th day of September, 2017.

12
13

A

14

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 4