Hannon v. Versteeg

• Court: District Court, D. Alaska
• Decided: January 13, 2021
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00151
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE

7 JAMES TYLER HANNON, No. 2:20-cv-00136-RAJ 8

9 Plaintiff, v.

10 ORDER DENYING DEFAULT KORY VERSTEEG, et al. JUDGMENT 11

12 Defendants.

14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. 16 Dkt. # 16. The Court DENIES the motion without prejudice to refiling. 17 II. LEGAL STANDARD 18 The Court’s role in reviewing a motion for default judgment is not ministerial. It 19 must accept all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as fact, except facts related to 20 the amount of damages. TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th 21 Cir. 1987). Where those facts establish a defendant’s liability, the Court has discretion, 22 not an obligation, to enter a default judgment. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 23 (9th Cir. 1980); Alan Neuman Productions, Inc. v. Albright, 862 F.2d 1388, 1392 (9th 24 Cir. 1988). The plaintiff must submit evidence supporting a claim for a particular sum of 25 damages. TeleVideo Sys., 826 F.2d at 917-18; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2)(B). If the 26 plaintiff cannot prove that the sum it seeks is “a liquidated sum or capable of 27 1 mathematical calculation,” the Court must hold a hearing or otherwise ensure that the 2 damage award is appropriate. Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 1981). 3 III. DISCUSSION 4 During the 2019 summer salmon season, Plaintiff James Tyler Hannon 5 (“Plaintiff”) was employed by Defendant Kory Versteeg as a deckhand aboard the F/V 6 Guardian, official number 263616, a fishing vessel with its home port in the Western 7 District of Washington. Dkt. # 1 ¶¶ 4-6. He claims that he was not provided a written 8 employment contract, id. ¶ 6, as required by 46 U.S.C § 10601. This statute states that 9 “[b]efore proceeding on a voyage, the owner, charterer, or managing operator . . . of a 10 fishing vessel . . . shall make a fishing agreement in writing with each seaman employed 11 on board.” 46 U.S.C § 10601(a). A “seaman” is defined as “an individual . . . engaged or 12 employed in any capacity or on board a vessel.” 46 U.S.C. § 10101(3). Plaintiff alleges 13 that he was paid less then verbally agreed upon and was not given an accounting of the 14 catch, in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 10602. Dkt. # 1 ¶ 7. Under this statute, “[w]hen fish 15 caught under an agreement under section 10601 of this title are delivered to the owner of 16 the vessel for processing and are sold, the vessel is liable in rem for the wages and shares 17 of the proceeds of the seamen.” 46 U.S.C. § 10602(a). 18 Section 11107 of the statute provides a remedy for such a situation. It states that if 19 an engagement of a seaman is contrary to federal law, it is void. 46 U.S.C § 11107; see 20 also Bjornsson v. U.S. Dominator, Inc., 863 P.2d 235, 238 (Alaska 1993) (holding that 21 “[w]ithout a written contract, [the plaintiff’s] employment agreement regarding his 22 services aboard the [fishing vessel] is contrary to law, and thus, void pursuant to section 23 11107”). The statute provides that “[a] seaman so engaged . . . is entitled to recover the 24 highest rate of wages at the port from which the seaman was engaged or the amount 25 agreed to be given the seaman at the time of engagement, whichever is higher.” 46 U.S.C 26 § 11107. 27 Here, Plaintiff claims he was verbally promised a 12 percent crew share of the 1 catch but only received 7 percent. Dkt. # 16-1 at 1. He states that the highest crew share 2 for a similarly situated deckhand out of the port where he was hired is 14 percent. Id. at 3 2. However, Plaintiff indicates that he was “not given an accounting of the catch.” Id. 4 He claims that he is owed an additional $18,000 in wages but fails to provide evidence in 5 support of this amount. Id. 6 On January 7, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide supplemental 7 information in support of the alleged amount owed no later than January 14, 2021. Dkt. 8 # 19. Plaintiff’s counsel replied on January 13, 2021, noting that he was unable to locate 9 Plaintiff and presumed that Plaintiff is out fishing. Dkt. # 20 at 1. Plaintiff’s counsel 10 stated the following:

11 Without an accounting, Mr. Hannon’s best estimate is that the F/V Guardian sold 12 her catch of salmon during the 2019 summer season for approximately $400,000. Less vessel expenses and the $10,000 he was given at the end of the salmon 13 season; Mr. Hannon’s best estimate is $18,000 due and owing at a 14% crew- share. If anything, that is a conservative estimate. 14

15 Id. at 2. 16 This declaration is insufficient to establish the amount owed. In the absence of 17 evidence supporting the calculation for the sum requested, the Court is unable to 18 determine whether the sum is appropriate. The Court must thereby deny the motion. 19 IV. CONCLUSION 20 The court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment for the reasons stated 21 above. This ruling is without prejudice to a renewed motion for default judgment that 22 addresses the concerns the court raised in this order. 23 DATED this 13th day of January, 2021. A 24 25 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 26