San Francisco Bar Pilots Benevolent and Protective Association v. Pilot Vessel Golden Gate, Official Number 990713, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO BAR PILOTS Case No. 25-cv-04413-AGT BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, ORDER RE: MOTION FOR DEFAULT Plaintiff, JUDGMENT v. Re: Dkt. No. 27

PILOT VESSEL GOLDEN GATE, OFFICIAL NUMBER 990713, et al., Defendants.

For several reasons, the Court questions whether the in rem defendant, Pilot Vessel Golden Gate, Official No. 990713, is an appropriate defendant. • Plaintiff doesn’t seek any relief from the Vessel. Rather, Plaintiff seeks only a declaration that a preferred mortgage, held by the in personam defendant or its predecessor, is no longer in force because Plaintiff paid off the loan that the mortgage secured. See Dkt. 14, FAC ¶ 17. • Plaintiff never served the Vessel with process. • Plaintiff seeks default judgment against the in personam defendant but not against the in rem defendant. Dkt. 27 at 1. The Court won’t enter judgment against a defaulting defendant (here the in personam defendant) “until the matter has been adjudicated with regard to all defendants.” Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1082 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting another source). If Plaintiff has claims against the Vessel, Plaintiff must proceed with them. If there are no such claims,

Plaintiff should either voluntarily dismiss all claims against the in rem defendant or explain why dismissal isn’t warranted by June 12, 2026. For the avoidance of doubt, the Court notes that even without the Vessel as a defend- ant, it will have subject-matter jurisdiction to resolve the dispute. As noted above, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the in personam defendant’s preferred mortgage is no longer in force. To decide whether federal jurisdiction exists to entertain a claim for declaratory relief, courts follow Skelly Oil’s approach to conceptually realign the declaratory judgment parties and claims and analyze them as they would appear in a coercive suit. Thus, if the defendant in a de- claratory suit could have sued in federal court, seeking non-declaratory relief on the same claims pressed in the declaratory suit, then federal courts have jurisdiction over the declaratory action.

Leopard Marine & Trading, Ltd. v. Easy St. Ltd., 896 F.3d 174, 182 (2d Cir. 2018) (citation modified); see also Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667, 672 (1950)). When Skelly Oil’s test is applied here, it supports federal jurisdiction. If the in per- sonam defendant, First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co., brought an action against Plaintiff to enforce the preferred mortgage, the Court would have jurisdiction to adjudicate that claim under the Commercial Instruments and Maritime Liens Act (CIMLA), 46 U.S.C. §§ 31301– 31343. Under § 31325(c), district courts have original jurisdiction over claims brought by mortgagees to enforce preferred ship mortgages against mortgagors. Because First-Citizens “could have sued in federal court, seeking non-declaratory relief on the same claims pressed in the declaratory suit, then federal courts have jurisdiction over the declaratory action.” Leopard, 896 F.3d at 182. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 5, 2026 Alex G. Tse United States Magistrate Judge