Louisiana International Marine, L.L.C. v. ATLAS CENTURY et al
Filing
106
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SALE OF VESSEL re: 80 Memorandum and Recommendations, 39 MOTION for Sale of Vessel.(Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(mserpa, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
LOUISIANA INTERNATIONAL
MARINE, L.L.C.
v.
The Drilling Rig ATLAS CENTURY,
and her engines, tackle, apparel,
appurtenances, etc., in rem, and
KTM SERVICES, INC., in personam
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. C-11-186
Admiralty - FED. R. CIV. P. 9(h)
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO
GRANT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SALE OF VESSEL
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Louisiana International Marine, L.L.C.’s Motion for
Sale of Vessel. (D.E. 39.) On November 21, 2011, United States Magistrate Judge Brian L.
Owsley signed and entered a Memorandum and Recommendation to Grant Plaintiff’s Motion for
Sale of Vessel. (D.E. 80.) The Magistrate Judge Recommends that Plaintiff’s motion for an
interlocutory sale of the vessel be granted and that the Atlas Century be scheduled for sale on or
after December 12, 2011. (Id. at 7.)
Intervenors Bayfront Consulting, L.L.C. (Bayfront) and Basic Energy, Ltd. (Basic) filed
an Objection to Memorandum and Recommendation to Grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Sale of
Vessel. (D.E. 81.) Bayfront and Basic objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and
Recommendation on the grounds that, at all relevant times, the Atlas Century was not a vessel,
and therefore, this Court lacked admiralty jurisdiction. (Id. at 1–2.) Intervenors Bayfront and
Basic additionally filed a Motion to Vacate Arrest and Motion to Dismiss In Rem Claims for
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (D.E. 89), in which they asserted the same jurisdictional
arguments set forth in their Objection to Memorandum and Recommendation to Grant Plaintiff’s
Motion for Sale of Vessel (D.E. 81).
On February 13, 2012, the Magistrate Judge held a motion hearing on Intervenors’
Motion to Vacate Arrest and Motion to Dismiss. On March 9, 2012, the Magistrate Judge signed
and entered a Memorandum and Recommendation to Grant in Part and Deny in Part the Motion
to Dismiss. (D.E. 102.) The Magistrate Judge recommended (1) that Bayfront and Basic be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) that the Atlas Century remain under arrest;
(3) that the motion to vacate any order to sell the Atlas Century be denied; and (4) that the
motion to dismiss against Plaintiff Louisiana International Marine, L.L.C. and the other
Intervenors be denied. (Id. at 24.) No timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum
and Recommendation were filed, and the Court entered an Order Adopting Memorandum and
Recommendation and Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss. (D.E. 105.)
More than fourteen days have passed since the parties, respectively, were served with the
Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation to Grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Sale of
Vessel. (D.E. 80.) As set forth above, the Court addressed Basic and Bayfront’s objections to
this Court’s admiralty jurisdiction, and both parties have been dismissed from the litigation.
(See D.E. 89 and 105.) There are, however, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings of
fact and conclusions of law regarding the sale of the Atlas Century pursuant to the criteria set
forth in FED. R. CIV. P. SUPP. ADMIRALTY RULE E(9)(a)(i). When no timely objections to a
magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation are filed, the district court need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s
findings and conclusions. Guillory v. PPG Industries, Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005)
(citing Douglass v. United Services Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)).
2
After reviewing the un-objected to portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and
Recommendation to Grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Sale of Vessel (D.E. 80), as well as all other
relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the
findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge regarding the sale of the Atlas Century
pursuant to SUPP. ADMIRALTY RULE E(9)(a)(i). Accordingly, Plaintiff Louisiana International
Marine, L.L.C.’s Motion for Sale of Vessel (D.E.39) is GRANTED.
ORDERED this 27th day of March 2012.
______________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
]]>
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?
