Stemcor USA Inc v. Cia Siderurgica do Para Cosipar et al, No. 2:2012cv02966 - Document 195 (E.D. La. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part 79 Motion to approve certain vessel expenses as custodia legis; granting 129 Motion to approve surveyors' expenses as expenses in custodia legis; denying 141 Motion to Vacate ; denying 175 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 07/30/2013. (Reference: Both Cases)(kac, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Stemcor USA Inc v. Cia Siderurgica do Para Cosipar et al Doc. 195 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA STEMCOR USA,INC. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 12 2966 c/w 12 2968 Pertains to: both cases CIA SIDERURGICA DO PARA (COSIPAR), SECTION C (1) ET AL ORDER AND REASONS This matter comes before the Court on: (1) motion to approve certain vessel expenses as custodia legis filed by Clipper Bulk, Ltd.; (2) motion to approve surveyors expenses as expenses in custodia legis; (3) motion to vacate filed by ThyssenKrupp Mannex GmbH ( TKM ); and (4) motion to stay Clipper Bulk s motion for payment of custodia legis expenses filed by TKM. Rec. Docs. 79, 129, 141 and 175. Having considered the record, the memoranda of counsel and the law, the Court rules as follows. Clipper Bulk, the owner of the vessel on which the arrested cargo was held, asserts that it is entitled to a daily rate of custodia legis expenses of $12,000, which is the daily demurrage rate set forth in the charter for the vessel, from December 22, 2012, through the date the cargo was discharged, as well as the costs of discharge and Dockets.Justia.com survey.1 The Court agrees that the expenses of holding the cargo, discharge, and survey inured to the benefit of all parties. That “part of the benefit of the [storage and] discharge] inured” to Clipper does not matter. Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. ALEXANDER’S UNITY M/V, 41 F.3d 1007, 1018 (5th Cir. 1995). “The fact that [Clipper] made the expenditure and benefited from the [storage and] discharge does not prohibit the finding that the expense[s] [were] necessary to maintain the value of the [cargo],” which they were. Id. At the same time, the in personam defendants have not appeared at the time when the reasonableness of the daily demurrage rate set forth in the contract is being challenged by non signatories to that agreement. The Court finds that the reasonableness of that rate is inherently factual in nature and remains for trial under the circumstances. See Marastro Compania Naviera, S.A. v. Canadian Maritime Carriers, Ltd., 959 F.2d 49, 53–54 (5th Cir. 1992). Intervenor TKM moves to vacate the Rule B attachments of Stemcor USA Inc. ( Stemcor ) and Daewoo International Corporation ( Daewoo ), to dismiss claims for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim under Louisiana law. Rec.Doc. 141. TKM provides the jurisdictional basis of its own intervention as 28 U.S.C.§ 1367, relative 1 No opposition was filed to Clipper s motion to approve the surveyors expenses as expenses in custodia legis. Rec.Doc. 129 That motion is properly supported and will be granted. 2 to supplemental jurisdiction in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction. Rec. Doc. 64 at ¶ 13. Nonetheless, this claimant seeks dismissal based on the argued lack of subject matter jurisdiction underlying the complaints and attachments of Stemcor and Daewoo. Neither in personam defendant has made an appearance, no judgment has been entered and, except for surveyors expenses, entitlement to any of the proceeds by any of the claimants is not an immediate prospect.2 Prudence dictates against addressing the concerns of this intervenor at this time, and the Court remains skeptical that the contracts of Stemcor and Daewoo are necessarily non maritime for jurisdictional purposes, that attachment under Louisiana law is deficient, or that Daewoo’s attachment under the United Nations Convention for the Enforcement of Arbitral Agreements and Judgments, codified in 9 U.S.C. § 201 et. seq., necessarily lacks support. For present purposes, the Court will rely on the sufficiency of the Rule C admiralty jurisdiction underlying Clipper s intervention, and is prepared at this time to maintain supplemental jurisdiction over other claims to the res.3 The undersigned was the last of the three judges to sign writs of attachment in 2 In addition, the prospect of an appeal from any judgment looms. 3 The Court finds that TKM s motion to stay lacks merit. Rec. Doc. 175. 3 these consolidated cases and the earlier case allegedly related to these. The Court now questions whether the transfer of these two cases was appropriate, as independent debts owed by a single party may not involve subject matter that comprises all or a material part of the subject matter or operative facts of the first Stemcor attachment. Nonetheless, the Court will not hesitate to examine subject matter jurisdiction at a later date, if appropriate. The distinct issue of subject jurisdiction in the absence of supplemental jurisdiction can be revisited, if appropriate, after the in personam defendants have appeared. Finally, this ruling is not intended to affect TKM s alleged rights to pursue its attachment in state court, to the extent that its arguments suggest that it can. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to approve certain vessel expenses as custodia legis filed by Clipper Bulk, Ltd. is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED in PART. Rec. Doc. 79; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to approve surveyors expenses as expenses in custodia legis filed by Clipper Bulk, Ltd. is GRANTED as unopposed and as properly supported. Rec. Doc. 129. A proposed order, approved as to form, shall be submitted within seven days from the date of this order. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to vacate filed by ThyssenKrupp Mannex GmbH is DENIED. Rec. Doc. 141. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to stay Clipper Bulk s motion for payment of Custodia legis expenses filed by filed by ThyssenKrupp Mannex GmbH is DENIED. Rec. Doc. 175. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 30th day of July, 2013. ____________________________________ HELEN G. BERRIGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
