Pacific Coast Maritime Inc v. East West Seafoods LLC

W.D. Washington

Pacific Coast Maritime Inc v. East West Seafoods LLC

DecidedApril 18, 2023

Docket3:23-cv-05011

StatusUnknown

This text of Pacific Coast Maritime Inc v. East West Seafoods LLC (Pacific Coast Maritime Inc v. East West Seafoods LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pacific Coast Maritime Inc v. East West Seafoods LLC, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT TACOMA 9 PACIFIC COAST MARITIME, INC., et al., CASE NO. C23-5011-JCC 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 EAST WEST SEAFOODS, LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment (Dkt. No. 16 24). The Court previously ordered default judgment be entered against in personam Defendant 17 East West Seafoods, LLC. (See Dkt. Nos. 18, 19.) Plaintiff now seeks entry of default judgment 18 against in rem Defendant F/V Pacific Producer, for which the Clerk previously issued a warrant 19 for its arrest and previously entered default. (See Dkt. Nos. 15, 15-1, 23, 24.) 20 “At the default judgment stage, the court presumes all well-pleaded factual allegations 21 related to liability are true.” Curtis v. Illumination Arts, Inc., 33 F. Supp. 3d 1200, 1211 (W.D. 22 Wash. 2014); see TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917–18 (9th Cir. 1987). 23 However, factual allegations relating to damages are not taken as true. Curtis, 33 F. Supp. 3d at 24 1211. A “plaintiff is required to prove all damages sought in the complaint, and the court must 25 ensure that the amount of damages is reasonable and demonstrated by the evidence.” Id. 26 The Court has reviewed the record in this matter, along with Plaintiffs’ instant motion 1 and the supporting declaration of Mark Krisher (including exhibits) (Dkt. Nos. 25, 25-1), and, on 2 this basis, ORDERS as follows: 3 1. Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment (Dkt. No. 24) is GRANTED. 4 2. Plaintiffs are awarded $94,800.63 in damages for repairs to the barge Iliuliuk Bay and 5 related expenses,1 $19,762.95 in costs associated with the arrest and maintenance of 6 F/V Pacific Producer, and $4,670.97 in prejudgment interest, for a total award against 7 in rem Defendant F/V Pacific Producer of $119,234.55. 8 3. Post-judgment interest will accrue at 4.53% per annum from the date of judgment. 9 10 DATED this 18th day of April 2023. 11 A 12 13 14 John C. Coughenour 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 Under general maritime law, Plaintiffs are entitled to pre and post-judgment interest. See Vance 26 v. American Hawaii Cruises, Inc., 789 F.2d 790, 794–95 (9th Cir.1986).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT TACOMA 9 PACIFIC COAST MARITIME, INC., et al., CASE NO. C23-5011-JCC 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 EAST WEST SEAFOODS, LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment (Dkt. No. 16 24). The Court previously ordered default judgment be entered against in personam Defendant 17 East West Seafoods, LLC. (See Dkt. Nos. 18, 19.) Plaintiff now seeks entry of default judgment 18 against in rem Defendant F/V Pacific Producer, for which the Clerk previously issued a warrant 19 for its arrest and previously entered default. (See Dkt. Nos. 15, 15-1, 23, 24.) 20 “At the default judgment stage, the court presumes all well-pleaded factual allegations 21 related to liability are true.” Curtis v. Illumination Arts, Inc., 33 F. Supp. 3d 1200, 1211 (W.D. 22 Wash. 2014); see TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917–18 (9th Cir. 1987). 23 However, factual allegations relating to damages are not taken as true. Curtis, 33 F. Supp. 3d at 24 1211. A “plaintiff is required to prove all damages sought in the complaint, and the court must 25 ensure that the amount of damages is reasonable and demonstrated by the evidence.” Id. 26 The Court has reviewed the record in this matter, along with Plaintiffs’ instant motion 1 and the supporting declaration of Mark Krisher (including exhibits) (Dkt. Nos. 25, 25-1), and, on 2 this basis, ORDERS as follows: 3 1. Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment (Dkt. No. 24) is GRANTED. 4 2. Plaintiffs are awarded $94,800.63 in damages for repairs to the barge Iliuliuk Bay and 5 related expenses,1 $19,762.95 in costs associated with the arrest and maintenance of 6 F/V Pacific Producer, and $4,670.97 in prejudgment interest, for a total award against 7 in rem Defendant F/V Pacific Producer of $119,234.55. 8 3. Post-judgment interest will accrue at 4.53% per annum from the date of judgment. 9 10 DATED this 18th day of April 2023. 11 A 12 13 14 John C. Coughenour 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 Under general maritime law, Plaintiffs are entitled to pre and post-judgment interest. See Vance 26 v. American Hawaii Cruises, Inc., 789 F.2d 790, 794–95 (9th Cir.1986).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Pacific Coast Maritime Inc v. East West Seafoods LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pacific-coast-maritime-inc-v-east-west-seafoods-llc-wawd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack