KPI Bridge Oil Ltd. v. M/V EVERGLORY

Filing 14

ORDER granting 13 Stipulated Motion for Approval of Substitute Security and Release of Vessel; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

Download PDF
1 THE HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 KPI BRIDGE OIL LTD., 10 11 12 13 IN ADMIRALTY Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 3:15-cv-05851-RBL v. M/V EVERGLORY (IMO 9628893), her tackle, boilers, apparel, furniture, engines, appurtenances, etc., in rem, 14 Defendant. 15 I. STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER FOR APPROVAL OF SUBSTITUTE SECURITY AND RELEASE OF VESSEL STIPULATION 16 Plaintiff, KPI BRIDGE OIL LTD. (“KPI” or “Plaintiff”) and Counsel for the Vessel’s 17 Owners, Claimant Marina Amethyst Shipping Limited (“Claimant” or “Owners”), 18 by and through undersigned counsel, stipulate to an Order approving substitute security and 19 releasing 20 As grounds for this motion, the parties state the following: 21 1. the M/V EVERGLORY (IMO 9628893) (the “Vessel”) from arrest. Owners have provided substitute security to stand in place of the 22 M/V EVERGLORY and serve as security for Plaintiff’s in rem claims against the Vessel 23 pursuant to Rule E(5)(a) of the Supplemental Admiralty Rules. See Rule E(5)(a). 24 2. Specifically, the parties have agreed to substitute security in the form of an 25 acceptable deposit into an agreed Escrow Account in the amount of USD 1,125,000, pursuant 26 to an Escrow Agreement between KPI and Owners, to secure claims in rem against the said STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER FOR APPROVAL OF SUBSTITUTE SECURITY AND RELEASE OF VESSEL – 1 (NO.: 3:15-cv-05851-RBL) LAW OFFICES OF NICOLL BLACK & FEIG A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 1325 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1650 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 TEL: 206-838-7555 1 Vessel, which the parties agree may be substitute res in lieu of the in rem arrest of the vessel. 2 See Petroleos Mexicanos Refinacion v. M/T King A, 554 F.3d 99, 105 (3d Cir. 2009)(“[A]s 3 a substitute for the res, [the funds] have the effect of transferring the maritime lien from the 4 vessel to the security fund.”); Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1341 5 (11th Cir. 2005) (noting the substitute security “becomes substitute for the property.”) 6 (internal citations omitted)); see also Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. The Vessel Bay Ridge, 703 7 F.2d 381, 384 (9th Cir. 1983), cert. dismissed, 467 U.S. 1247 (1984) (“A plaintiff's lien for the 8 claims alleged against the vessel is transferred to the security posted.”); Gabarick v. Laurin 9 Mar. Am., Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135248, *298 – 299 (E.D.La. 2014)(“…the [escrow 10 amount] operates as a substitute res, in place of the vessel, against which the Court's judgment 11 is enforceable to the same extent that it would be were the vessel actually in the custody of the 12 Court or a designated trustee.”) 3. 13 As the parties have stipulated and agreed to substitute security in accordance 14 with the provisions of Supplemental Rule E(5)(a), it is respectfully requested that the Court 15 approve the security provided to counsel for Plaintiff in lieu of continuation of arrest of the 16 vessel and that the Substitute Custodian and U.S. Marshal be directed to release the arrested 17 property, the M/V EVERGLORY, without delay. 4. 18 Finally, undersigned counsel confirms that the fees for the United States 19 Marshal and Substitute Custodian have been provided1, and that there are no other parties that 20 have appeared in this action. Therefore, the Vessel may immediately be released from arrest. 21 A form of proposed Order is submitted with this Motion. 22 // 23 // 24 25 26 1 The U.S. Marshal has not yet been invoiced for the services provided relating to the arrest, but confirms that KPI provided the required deposit. Once invoiced, the U.S. Marshal fees will be deducted from this deposit. STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER FOR APPROVAL OF SUBSTITUTE SECURITY AND RELEASE OF VESSEL – 2 (NO.: 3:15-cv-05851-RBL) LAW OFFICES OF NICOLL BLACK & FEIG A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 1325 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1650 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 TEL: 206-838-7555 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DATED this 17th day of December, 2015. NICOLL BLACK & FEIG PLLC KEESAL, YOUNG & LOGAN /s/ Jeremy B. Jones Jeremy Jones, WSBA No. 44138 Shannon L. Trivett, WSBA No. 46689 Attorneys for Plaintiff __/s/ Philip R. Lempriere___________ Philip R. Lempriere, WSBA No. 20304 Molly J. Henry, WSBA No. 40818 Attorneys for Claimant OF COUNSEL: CHALOS & CO, P.C. George M. Chalos (GC-8693) (pro hac vice application forthcoming) 55 Hamilton Avenue, Oyster Bay, NY 11771 Telephone: (516) 714-4300 Email: gmc@chaloslaw.com II. ORDER 11 Based on the foregoing stipulation, it is hereby: 12 ORDERED that the Motion for Approval of Substitute security and Release of Vessel 13 14 15 16 is granted; and it is further ORDERED that pursuant to Supplemental Rule E(5)(a) and the agreement of the parties, the Escrow Amount of USD 1,125,000 is approved as substituted security for in rem claims against the M/V EVERGLORY by Plaintiff; and it is further ORDERED that the Defendant Vessel M/V EVERGLORY is released from the 17 custody of the United States Marshal and the Substitute Custodian Marine Lenders Services, 18 LLC; and it is further 19 ORDERED that it is not necessary for a Deputy Marshal to proceed to the Vessel for 20 the release of the M/V EVERGLORY. Instead, the release may be communicated and made 21 effective by provision of a copy of this Order, by facsimile or email, to the office of the United States Marshal and to the Substitute Custodian for the Vessel. 22 23 24 25 DATED this 17th day of December 2015. A Ronald B. Leighton United States District Judge 26 STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER FOR APPROVAL OF SUBSTITUTE SECURITY AND RELEASE OF VESSEL – 3 (NO.: 3:15-cv-05851-RBL) LAW OFFICES OF NICOLL BLACK & FEIG A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 1325 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1650 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 TEL: 206-838-7555

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?