Rockin "D" Marine Servics, LLC v. Sea Endeavor M/V, et al, No. 2:2017cv01146 - Document 54 (E.D. La. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting 51 Motion for Summary Judgment. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Allied Shipyard's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 9/19/2017. (cg)

Download PDF
Rockin "D" Marine Servics, LLC v. Sea Endeavor M/V, et al Doc. 54 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ROCKIN “D” MARINE SERVICES, LLC VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-1146 M/ V SEA ENDEAVOR ET AL. SECTION “R” (4) ORD ER AN D REASON S Before the Court is plaintiff Rockin “D” Marine Services, LLC’s m otion for sum m ary judgm ent on intervenor Allied Shipyard, Inc.’s claim s against defendant M/ V SEA ENDEAVOR. 1 For the following reasons, the Court grants plaintiff’s motion. I. BACKGROU N D Plaintiff and Allied Shipyard both have m aritim e liens against the M/ V SEA ENDEAVOR. On September 15, 20 14, Sea Endeavor, LLC executed a m ortgage on the M/ V SEA ENDEAVOR in the am ount of $ 1,50 0 ,0 0 0 in favor of plaintiff. 2 Plaintiff filed this m ortgage at the U.S. Coast Guard National 1 2 R. Doc. 51. R. Doc. 51-7 at 1; R. Doc. 51-3 at 7. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Vessel Documentation Center on March 11, 20 15. 3 A balance of $ 982,347.11 rem ains unpaid on the m ortgage. 4 Allied Shipyard provided m aterials, repair services, and m achinery in the am ount of $ 172,411.56 to the M/ V SEA ENDEAVOR. 5 Allied Shipyard filed a notice of claim of lien for these services on February 24, 20 16. 6 According to that notice, the lien was established on Decem ber 16, 20 15. 7 A balance of $ 118,711.56 rem ains unpaid for Allied Shipyard’s services. 8 On February 9, 20 17, plaintiff filed this action to foreclose on its ship m ortgage. The U.S. Marshals Service seized the vessel on February 13, 20 17, pursuant to this Court’s order. 9 Allied Shipyard then intervened to assert its m aritim e lien against the M/ V SEA ENDEAVOR. 10 The Court granted plaintiff’s m otion to enter default against anyone who failed to appear and file a claim against the vessel, and directed the Marshals Service to sell the vessel at public auction. 11 After several auctions with no bids above the 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 R. Doc. 51-7 at 1. Id. at 2. R. Doc. 12 at 2 ¶ 5. R. Doc. 51-7 at 2. R. Doc. 51-3 at 8. R. Doc. 12 at 2 ¶ 6. R. Doc. 8. R. Doc. 12. R. Doc. 26. 2 m inim um starting bid, plaintiff purchased the vessel for $ 10 ,0 0 0 on August 7, 20 17. 12 The Court confirm ed this sale on August 11. 13 Plaintiff now m oves for sum m ary judgm ent on Allied Shipyard’s claim s against the M/ V SEA ENDEAVOR. 14 Allied Shipyard does not oppose plaintiff’s m otion. No other parties have com e forth with com peting claims. II. STAN D ARD Sum m ary judgment is warranted when “the m ovant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any m aterial fact and the m ovant is entitled to judgm ent as a m atter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 10 69, 10 75 (5th Cir. 1994). When assessing whether a dispute as to any m aterial fact exists, the Court considers “all of the evidence in the record but refrain[s] from m aking credibility determ inations or weighing the evidence.” Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationw ide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398-99 (5th Cir. 20 0 8). All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonm oving party, but “unsupported allegations or affidavits setting forth ‘ultim ate or conclusory facts and conclusions of law’ are insufficient to either 12 13 14 R. Doc. 48. R. Doc. 50 . R. Doc. 51. 3 support or defeat a m otion for sum m ary judgment.” Galindo v. Precision Am . Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1216 (5th Cir. 1985); see also Little, 37 F.3d at 10 75. “No genuine dispute of fact exists if the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-m oving party.” EEOC v. Sim baki, Ltd., 767 F.3d 475, 481 (5th Cir. 20 14). If the dispositive issue is one on which the m oving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the m oving party “m ust come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial.” Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally ’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1264-65 (5th Cir. 1991). The nonm oving party can then defeat the m otion by either countering with evidence sufficient to dem onstrate the existence of a genuine dispute of m aterial fact, or “showing that the m oving party’s evidence is so sheer that it m ay not persuade the reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict in favor of the m oving party.” Id. at 1265. If the dispositive issue is one on which the nonm oving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the m oving party m ay satisfy its burden by m erely pointing out that the evidence in the record is insufficient with respect to an essential elem ent of the nonm oving party’s claim . See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. The burden then shifts to the nonm oving party, who m ust, by subm itting or referring to evidence, set out specific facts showing that a 4 genuine issue exists. See id. at 324. The nonm ovant m ay not rest upon the pleadings, but m ust identify specific facts that establish a genuine issue for trial. See, e.g., id.; Little, 37 F.3d at 10 75 (“Rule 56 m andates the entry of sum m ary judgment, after adequate tim e for discovery and upon m otion, against a party who fails to m ake a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an elem ent essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322)). III. D ISCU SSION The Ship Mortgage Act, 46 U.S.C. § 3130 1, et seq., governs the priority of the claim s asserted here. Specifically, when a vessel is sold at a judicial sale, all claim s against the vessel are term inated and subsequently attach to the proceeds of the sale. When, as in this case, a “preferred ship m ortgage” is asserted, the order of priorities is the following: (1) expenses of justice; (2) preferred m aritim e liens; (3) the preferred m ortgage; and (4) other m aritim e liens. See 46 U.S.C. § 31326; Thomas J . Schoenbaum, Adm iralty and Maritim e Law § 9-6 (5th ed. 20 11); see also Governor and Co. of Bank of Scotland v. Sabay , 211 F.3d 261, 270 (5th Cir. 20 0 0 ) (“A preferred ship m ortgage ‘has priority over all claim s against the vessel (except for expenses and fees allowed by the court, costs im posed by the court, and preferred 5 m aritim e liens).’” (quoting 46 U.S.C. § 31326(b)(1))). Under the statute, a “preferred m aritime lien” is defined as a “m aritim e lien on a vessel (A) arising before a preferred m ortgage was filed under section 31321 of this title; (B) for dam age arising out of a m aritim e tort; (C) for wages of a stevedore . . . ; (D) for wages of the crew of the vessel; (E) for general average; or (F) for salvage, including contract salvage.” 46 U.S.C. § 3130 1(5). The facts in this case are undisputed. Plaintiff asserts a preferred m ortgage against the M/ V SEA ENDEAVOR. A preferred m ortgage is one that includes the whole of the vessel, is filed in substantial com pliance with 46 U.S.C. § 31321, and covers a documented vessel. See 46 U.S.C. § 31322(a). Under Section 31321, a ship m ortgage m ust (1) identify the vessel; (2) state the parties’ names and addresses; (3) state the am ount of the obligations that is or m ay becom e secured by the m ortgage, excluding interest, expenses, and fees; (4) state the m ortgagor’s interest in the vessel; (5) state the m ortgaged interest; and (6) be signed and acknowledged. 46 U.S.C. § 31321(b). Having reviewed the m ortgage docum ent, 15 the Court finds that plaintiff’s m ortgage satisfies all of the requirem ents of Section 31322 as set forth above. Moreover, plaintiff’s preferred m ortgage was recorded at the U.S. Coast Guard National Vessel Documentation Center, “[giving] rise to a 15 R. Doc. 1-4. 6 presum ption of regularity which in the absence of other evidence is sufficient to establish the mortgage’s validity.” W estinghouse Credit Corp. v. O/ S DOROTHY CLAIRE, 732 F. Supp. 59, 61 (E.D. Tex. 1989) (citing State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. SEA FREEZE, 1981 A.M.C. 20 0 1, 20 0 3-0 4 (E.D. Va. 1979)). The Court therefore finds that plaintiff has a preferred m ortgage on the vessel. Allied Shipyard has asserted a m aritim e lien against the M/ V SEA ENDEAVOR for necessaries. “Necessaries” include repairs and supplies. 46 U.S.C. § 3130 1(4). Plaintiff contends that Allied Shipyard provided repair work to the M/ V SEA ENDEAVOR for which it was never fully paid. 16 These services clearly fall within the definition of “necessaries.” Accordingly, the Court finds that Allied Shipyard has a valid m aritim e lien against the M/ V SEA ENDEAVOR. See 46 U.S.C. § 31342 (providing that “a person providing necessaries to a vessel on the order of the owner . . . has a m aritim e lien on the vessel”). As discussed above, preferred m aritim e liens take priority over preferred m ortgages. But to be a preferred m aritime lien, the lien m ust either arise before a preferred m ortgage was filed or fall into one of five specific categories. See 46 U.S.C. § 3130 1(5). Because none of the five 16 R. Doc. 51-7 at 2. 7 specific categories applies here, Allied Shipyard’s m aritim e lien is preferred only if it arose before plaintiff filed its m ortgage. A m aritim e lien arises at the m oment “when the goods or services are supplied or perform ed.” Gulf Trading & Transp. Co. v. The Vessel Hoegh Shield, 658 F.2d 363, 367 (5th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff filed its m ortgage on March 11, 20 15. Plaintiff contends, and Allied Shipyard does not dispute, that there is no evidence in the record showing that Allied Shipyard provided its services before plaintiff filed its m ortgage. 17 In fact, Allied Shipyard’s notice of claim of lien suggests that its lien arose in December 20 15. Thus, plaintiff’s preferred m ortgage takes priority over Allied Shipyard’s m aritime lien and m ust be satisfied in full before Allied Shipyard can receive any proceeds from the sale of the M/ V SEA ENDEAVOR. Because the sale did not fully satisfy plaintiff’s m ortgage, there are no proceeds from the sale to distribute to Allied Shipyard, and plaintiff is entitled to sum m ary judgment. 17 R. Doc. 51-2 at 5-6. 8 IV. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s m otion for sum m ary judgment. Allied Shipyard’s claim s are DISMISSED WITH PREJ UDICE. 19th New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _ _ _ _ day of Septem ber, 20 17. _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 9

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.