Leo's Welding and Fabrication LLC v. P/V Hannah

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 28, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00625
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 LEO'S WELDING AND FABRICATION CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00625-LK 11 LLC, ORDER DENYING MOTION 12 Plaintiff, AUTHORIZING WARRANT FOR v. ARREST OF VESSEL AND 13 MOTION TO APPOINT P/V HANNAH et al., SUBSTITUTE CUSTODIAN 14 15 Defendants. 16

17 This matter comes before the Court on the Motions to Issue Warrant for Arrest of Vessel 18 and to Appoint Substitute Custodian by Plaintiff Leo’s Welding and Fabrication, LLC (“Leo’s 19 Welding”). Dkt. Nos. 11, 12. Leo’s Welding requests that the Court “authorize the clerk to issue a 20 Warrant for Arrest of [the] defendant vessel,” the P/V HANNAH, Official Number 1067457, her 21 machinery, engines, equipment, cargo, and appurtenances (the “Vessel”), Dkt. No. 11 at 1–2, and 22 appoint Marine Lenders Services, LLC as substitute custodian for the Vessel. Dkt. No. 12 at 1. 23 An in rem action may be brought “[t]o enforce any maritime lien” or “[w]henever a statute 24 of the United States provides for a maritime action in rem or a proceeding analogous thereto.” Fed. 1 R. Civ. P. Supp. Adm. & Mar. Cl. R. C(1). “To commence an action in rem against a vessel, the 2 plaintiff must file a verified complaint that describes the vessel ‘with reasonable particularity’ and 3 states that the vessel ‘is within the district’ or will be so ‘while the action is pending.’” Barnes v. 4 Sea Hawaii Rafting, LLC, 889 F.3d 517, 529 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Adm.

5 & Mar. Cl. R. C(2)). If, after reviewing a complaint and any supporting papers, the Court 6 determines that the conditions for an in rem action appear to exist, it “must issue an order directing 7 the clerk to issue a warrant for the arrest of the vessel or other property that is the subject of the 8 action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Adm. & Mar. Cl. R. C(3)(a)(i). 9 Leo’s Welding meets all but one of these requirements. It “alleges a cause of action in rem 10 to enforce a maritime lien,” Sterling Sav. Bank v. Vessel Imagine, No. C 13-2499 RS, 2013 WL 11 3354416, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2013), and attaches to the complaint the lien recorded by the 12 Coast Guard on December 17, 2024. Dkt. No. 1 at 1, 3; Dkt. No. 1-3. Its complaint is verified by 13 Leonardo Estrada, a member and authorized representative of Leo’s Welding. Dkt. No. 1 at 6. 14 Leo’s Welding further states that the Vessel was located in this district in Bellingham, Washington,

15 at the time this complaint was filed, Dkt. No. 1 at 2, and continues to be located in the district, Dkt. 16 No. 11 at 2; thus, the vessel “‘is within the district’ or will be so ‘while the action is pending.’” 17 See Barnes, 889 F.3d at 529 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Adm. & Mar. Cl. R. C(2)). 18 But Leo’s Welding fails to “describe with reasonable particularity the property that is the 19 subject of the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Adm. & Mar. Cl. R. C(2)(b). The complaint describes 20 the Vessel as the “P/V HANNAH, Official Number 1067457, . . . a vessel duly documented under 21 the laws of the United States and owned by in personam defendant Sayak Logistics, LLC.” Dkt. 22 No. 1 at 2. More information is needed. See 8 Benedict on Admiralty § 23.08 (“If the property is 23 a blue-water ship having a name and home port, stating those should suffice. Inland waters craft

24 are often identified by name, official number, length, breadth, draft, and tonnage. If the property 1 is a fiberglass cruiser laid up for the winter in a boatyard, more details are needed in order to 2 provide ‘reasonable particularity’ for the U.S. marshal to sort out the Firefly from two dozen 3 similar ships.”); see also, e.g., Peoples Bank v. Norcoaster, No. 2:22-CV-00127-RAJ, 2022 WL 4 800903, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 4, 2022) (finding allegation of just the defendant vessel’s name,

5 official number, and ownership insufficient to meet the reasonable particularity standard); cf. 6 Shelter Cove Marina, Ltd. v. M/Y Isabella, No. 19-CV-1106, 2019 WL 2524992, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 7 June 18, 2019) (“Shelter Cove’s Verified Complaint reasonably describes the vessel—an 81.6- 8 foot, 1952 motor yacht of steel construction which is documented with the United States Coast 9 Guard under Official Number 1192004[.]”); Sterling Sav. Bank v. Vessel Imagine, No. 13-CV- 10 2499, 2013 WL 3354416, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2013) (finding allegation “that Defendant 11 Imagine, Hull ID 1YD70139A910, at 2010 Destination 70’ Yacht, Official Number 1222594 . . . 12 is a custom houseboat located at Cruiser Haven Marina in Discovery Bay, California” to be 13 sufficient to issue warrant for arrest). 14 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion to Issue Warrant for Arrest of

15 Vessel. Dkt. No. 11. The Court also DENIES the Motion to Appoint Substitute Custodian as moot. 16 Dkt. No. 12. The Court does so without prejudice to the refiling of either motion. 17 Dated this 28th day of April, 2025. 18 A 19 Lauren King United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24