SaviBank v. M/Y Frequensea

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided September 19, 2023·No. 2:23-cv-00966·Unknown

Opinion

1 THE HONORABLE JOHN H. CHUN 2

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 9

IN ADMIRALTY 11 Plaintiff, NO. 2:23-cv-00966-JHC 12 v. M/Y FREQUENSEA, Official Number ORDER OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN 13 1098950, her mast, bowsprit, boat, anchors, REM AND ORDER OF SALE cables, chains, rigging, tackle, apparel, 14 furniture, and appurtenances, in rem, and MICHAEL R. PRICE, in personam; 15 Defendants. 16

17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. Dkt. # 18 22. The Court has reviewed the materials submitted in support of the motion, pertinent 19 portions of the record, and the applicable law. No person has appeared to claim Defendant 20 Vessel M/Y FREQUENSEA, Official No. 1098950 (the “Defendant Vessel”), to answer 21 Plaintiff’s Complaint, or to assert other claims against the Defendant Vessel. 22 Being fully advised, the Court rules as follows: 23

ORDER OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN REM 1 A. Jurisdiction & Procedural Requirements. The Court has subject matter

2 jurisdiction over the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1). Also, the Court has in rem jurisdiction

3 over the vessel as it issued a warrant for arrest of the vessel, which was served in this district.

4 Dkt. ## 7, 19; Ventura Packers, Inc. v. F/V Jeanine Kathleen, 424 F.3d 852, 858 (9th Cir.

5 2005). The complaint meets the requirements of Supplemental Admiralty Rule C(2). Dkt. #

6 1. Further, Plaintiff has satisfied the notice requirements of Rule C and Local Admiralty

7 Rules 125, 130, and 150. Dkt. # 19. More than 14 days have passed since the arrest and

8 publication of notice, id., and no person has filed a verified statement of right asserting any

9 right of possession or ownership in the vessel. See Supp. Adm. R. C(6)(a)(i)(A).

10 B. Application of Factors Under Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986). 11 1. Plaintiff would suffer prejudice if default judgment were not entered 12 when no other party has responded or claimed a right of interest, Defendant Price failed to 13 make timely payments on the Note secured by the Defendant Vessel, and Plaintiff continues 14 to accrue costs in holding Defendant Vessel in custody. Plaintiff would be prejudiced 15 because it is left without a legal remedy for its claims against the in rem defendant absent 16 entry of default judgment. 17 2. Plaintiff has a valid claim against the in rem defendant: Plaintiff’s 18 verified complaint, accepted as true upon default, establishes Plaintiff’s right to the remedies 19 and priorities under 46 U.S.C. § 31325(b)(1) (enforcement of preferred marine mortgage in a 20 civil action in rem). 21 3. Plaintiff is seeking a proportional amount of damages caused by 22 Defendant Price. 23

ORDER OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN REM 1 4. There is no genuine issue of material fact.

2 5. The record contains no indication the vessel’s default was due to

3 excusable neglect.

4 6. Generally, cases “should be decided upon their merits whenever

5 reasonably possible.” Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472. But in this case, the failure to appear or

6 respond “makes a decision on the merits impractical, if not impossible,” so the Court is not

7 precluded from granting default judgment. PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d

8 1172, 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2002); see also Empl. Painters’ Trust v. Dahl Constr. Servs., Inc., No.

9 C19-1541-RSM, 2020 WL 3639591 (W.D. Wash. July 6, 2020). Thus, default judgment is

10 an appropriate remedy in this case.

11 C. Damages. Because the Court does not accept the amount of claimed damages

12 as true in a default judgment motion, it must assess whether Plaintiff’’ claimed damages are

13 appropriate to award. Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977). The

14 plaintiff has the burden of proving its requested damages are reasonable and supported by

15 evidence. Bd. Of Trs. Of the Boilermaker Vacation Tr. v. Skelly, Inc., 389 F. Supp. 2d 1222,

16 1226 (N.D. Cal. 2005).

17 D. Order

18 Given the foregoing, the Court ORDERS that:

19 1. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

20 2. Judgment be entered against the Defendant Vessel as prayed for in the

21 Plaintiff’s Complaint in the amount of $268,855.17, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and

22 custodial fees inured by Plaintiff, prejudgment interest, post judgment interest from the date

23 of entry of this Order, costs of this action (including charges for all fees for keepers and their

ORDER OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN REM 1 costs incurred in this action and for all expenses in the sale of the Defendant Vessel) between

2 June 2023 and the final disbursement of the proceeds of the judicial sale of defendant vessel;

3 3. The Defendant Vessel be condemned to answer the judgment of

4 Plaintiff and the Clerk of this Court shall issue a writ venditioni exponas to the Marshal of

5 this District for the sale of the Defendant Vessel, the Plaintiff shall publish in the Daily

6 Journal of Commerce, Seattle, Washington a Notice of Sale, in the form attached hereto, for

7 eight (8) consecutive days prior to the day of sale, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal

8 holidays in accordance with Local Admiralty Rule 145.

9 4. The sale shall be conducted according to the following terms:

10 (a) The sale will be to the highest bidder who must on the day of sale

11 deposit with the Marshal, in cash or cashier’s check issued by a Seattle member bank of the

12 Federal Reserve System, 10% of the bid and pay the balance due, in cash or cashier’s check

13 issued by a Seattle member bank of the Federal Reserve System within three (3) days

14 thereafter, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. If an objection to the sale is

15 filed within that time, the bidder is excused from paying the balance of the purchase price

16 until the sale is confirmed, and for a period of three (3) days thereafter excluding Saturdays,

17 Sundays and legal holidays. If no written objection is filed within three (3) days of the date of

18 sale, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, the sale will be confirmed as in due

19 course in accordance with Local Admiralty Rule 145(e). Upon the failure of the successful

20 bidder to pay the balance of the purchase price when due, the entire deposit shall be forfeited

21 and applied toward administrative costs and then in satisfaction of the proven liens,

22 according to their priority.

ORDER OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN REM 1 (b) The Plaintiffs or any other party who has been awarded judgment

2 against the vessel may bid at the Marshal’s sale all or any part of its judgment in lieu of cash

3 and, if the successful bidder, it shall be required to deposit and pay in cash or cashier’s check

4 only so much as shall exceed its judgment plus interest (including pre-judgment interest and

5 post-judgment interest), costs (including charges for all fees for keepers and their costs

6 incurred in this action and for all expenses in the sale of the Defendant Vessel), and

7 reasonable attorneys’ fees, and a sum sufficient to secure outstanding Marshal’s fees and

8 costs and the Marshal’s commission.

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

SaviBank v. M/Y Frequensea, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

SaviBank v. M/Y Frequensea (SaviBank v. M/Y Frequensea) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gary R. Eitel v. William D. McCool
782 F.2d 1470 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)
Ventura Packers, Inc. v. F/V JEANINE KATHLEEN
424 F.3d 852 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Mousa v. Islamic Republic of Iran
238 F. Supp. 2d 1 (District of Columbia, 2001)