Atlantic Power & Electric Company v. Big Jake

• Decision Date: 01 February 2022
• Docket Number: Civil No. 20-7585 (NLH/MJS)
• Citation: 583 F.Supp.3d 631
• Parties: ATLANTIC POWER & ELECTRIC COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. The BIG JAKE and Safer Tug & Barge, LLC, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

583 F.Supp.3d 631

ATLANTIC POWER & ELECTRIC COMPANY, Plaintiff,

v.The BIG JAKE and Safer Tug & Barge, LLC, Defendants.

Civil No. 20-7585 (NLH/MJS)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

Signed February 1, 2022

Filed February 2, 2022

MARY REEVES, BRIAN MCEWING, REEVES MCEWING, LLP, 1004 S. FRONT STREET, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19147, Attorneys for Plaintiff Atlantic Power & Electric Company.

JOSEPH J. PERRONE, MATTHEW M. GORDON, GUILIANO MCDONELL & PERRONE, LLP, 139 PROSPECT STREET - 2^ND FLOOR, RIDGEWOORD, NJ 07450, Attorney for Defendants the Big Jake and Safer Tug & Barge, LLC.

HILLMAN, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court by way of a motion for summary judgment, [Docket Number 49], filed by Plaintiff, Atlantic Power & Electric Company ("Atlantic Power"), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The Court has considered the parties’ submissions and decides this matter without oral argument pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

BACKGROUND

The Court takes its facts from the record and the parties’ statements of material facts not in dispute. The Court will note disputes where relevant.

Atlantic Power is a Pennsylvania corporation that, in addition to general electrical contracting work, performs repairs to vessels, provides electrical supplies and equipment, and other services. Atlantic Power's principal place of business is in New Jersey. Douglas Galka, a licensed electrician, is Plaintiff's principal and president.

Defendant Safer Tug & Barge, LLC ("Safer Tug") is a Delaware limited liability company and the owner of the Defendant vessel the Big Jake (the "vessel"). Safer Tug's principal place of business is in New Jersey. Edward Safer, Jr. is Safer Tug's principal. According to Safer, prior to the instant action, Safer and Galka were close friends for over 20 years until a falling out.

Safer Tug purchased the vessel in December of 2014. According to Safer, the vessel needed work to become seaworthy, to which he contacted multiple friends, including Galka, to help him work on the vessel.

On or around February 2015, Galka claims he corresponded with Safer via text messaging to offer to provide services for electrical installation and rewiring of the vessel. Exhibit I, [Dkt. No. 49-11]. In exchange for said services, Plaintiff avers that Galka requested terms of: (1) "[$]1,000.00 per 10 hour day," (2) with any time over per day as free, and (3) "all expenses paid" (including "travel, food, tolls, lodging, [ ] etc." and materials, for which he agreed to "submit invoices to [Safer] as they come in"). Id. The alleged text message further sets forth that Galka's hours billed "will be logged and agreed on by both parties." Id. Plaintiff asserts that Safer responded to the message with a reply text message of "Sounds good. !! Lets go[.] I m in van with darrin and Donna. Smoking like crazy[.]" Id.

Defendants deny this account and dispute the authenticity of the text messages. Although Defendants’ discovery responses note they can neither admit nor deny the authenticity of the purported text messages, Safer declares that he lacks any independent recollection of the messages and has no copies of said messages on his phone.¹ Declaration of Edward Safer, Jr., [Dkt. No. 57-2], ¶8. Defendants note the messages are not dated, or at least not clearly dated, and the text messages’ content is irreconcilable with Safer's sworn declaration. For example, Safer declares, "I did not have a van, I have no recollection of Darrin or Donna, and I never smoked in my life." Safer Decl., ¶8.

From approximately February 2015 through November 2016, Galka worked on the vessel. According to Safer, most of the work performed on the vessel occurred in New York while it was at boatyards in Brooklyn and Staten Island. During this time, Galka claims his invoices grew to reflect $130,910.34 worth of services (e.g. labor, materials, fuel, tolls, interest). Exhibit C, [Dkt. No. 49-5].

On September 5, 2016, Safer signed and dated a Tugboat Invoice Summary totaling $125,215.34. Exhibit D, [Dkt. No. 49-6]. Just above the Invoice Summary's signature and date lines is the typed-out phrase: "Confirmation that I have received and accepted the attached billing." Id. Galka claims that, despite repeated demands, Safer refused to pay the outstanding balance, which resulted in Atlantic Power filing a Notice of Claim of Lien against the vessel in May of 2018.

In contrast to Galka's version of events, Safer claims he had no idea that he was engaging Galka's business to provide services to Safer Tug. Safer declares he merely called upon an old friend to help lend his electrical contracting skills in an exchange, as was their custom for decades. Safer declares that, prior to their falling out, Galka and Safer worked with and for one another for over 20 years trading services as friends. Safer claims they never once exchanged bills or payments beyond the reimbursement of expenses. Safer thus claims he never expected Galka to bill Safer Tug for anything beyond expenses.

Safer denies entering into an agreement with Plaintiff on behalf of Defendants. According to Safer, he and Galka agreed to a simple exchange. In return for Galka's services, Safer Tug would reimburse Galka's expenses and assist him in acquiring a maritime 200-ton towing license -- which Galka needed to become a member of the International Longshoremen's Association and thereby earn union scale wages and benefits for future union work. In fact, this arrangement was not unique, as Safer claims he called upon another friend, Gregory Szabo, a licensed heating and plumbing contractor, under an identical agreement.

In support of Defendants’ version of events, Defendants put forth Szabo's declaration. Szabo declares:

We all worked on the Vessel with the understanding that we were donating our time and that, once completed, the BIG JAKE would give us the opportunity to earn money by becoming licensed tugboat mariners and employable as union seafarers. I specifically recall Mr. Galka and I talking about how we could earn good money with union work once the BIG JAKE was in service.

[Declaration of Gregory Szabo, [Dkt. No. 57-3], .]

Szabo further states that Safer Tug "paid for the classes and training, flew an instructor to New York to teach the classes, and paid all associated charges for all of us to earn our 200—ton licenses." Ibid. Szabo claims, throughout the course of their many interactions, Galka never mentioned that he expected to be paid, that Galka had a contract, or that Galka expected anything beyond reimbursement for expenses and the opportunity to earn a maritime license. Id. at ¶¶3-5.

Defendants also take issue with the Tugboat Invoice Summary. Defendants claim they neither confirmed nor accepted the invoice's balance. Under Plaintiff's version of events, pursuant to the text message agreement, Plaintiff was responsible for billing Safer Tug periodically, logging hours, and having said hours agreed to by both parties. Defendants aver that Plaintiff failed to do any of these administrative obligations and have not produced anything to the contrary. Safer further declares he signed the invoice "because my friend asked me to, not because I thought we had a formal contract or my company owed his company money for labor. He told me that he needed the papers to account for his time to his girlfriend who was also his bookkeeper." Safer Dec., ¶9. Safer claims he had multiple in-person and telephone calls with Galka disputing the validity and contents of the invoice. Furthermore, Defendants argue the invoices are unreliable, containing numerous errors and dubious entries:

• Safer's signature is dated September 5, 2016, yet the invoice itself is dated July 21, 2017. Moreover, the invoice contains time entries for work performed in October and November 2016 — making them irreconcilable with the signature date.

• The invoice includes charges that are irrelevant to the vessel, such as charges for work performed on Safer's daughter's restaurant and Don Lane's home.

• Charges for work performed on the vessel corresponding to days when no one worked on the vessel.

• Charges for travel, events, work at peoples’ homes, and to attend events that had nothing to do with work on the vessel.

Accordingly, Defendants dispute the validity of the invoices and deny owing anything further to Galka, claiming he was reimbursed for all expenses as per their agreement.

On June 22, 2020,² Plaintiff filed this matter before the Court. Plaintiff named Safer Tug, in personam , and the vessel, in rem , as Defendants. Plaintiff's Complaint has four counts, including claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and a maritime lien under the Commercial Instruments and Maritime Lien Act ("CIMLA," previously called the Federal Maritime Lien Act or "FMLA"), 46 U.S.C. § 31301 et seq.

On March 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants filed their opposition on April 19, 2021, and Plaintiff filed a reply on April 26, 2021. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore ripe for adjudication.³

ANALYSIS

A. Jurisdiction

This Court's authority over admiralty cases derives from the Constitution, which provides federal judicial power "to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction." U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. Congress, in turn, encapsulated this power in statute giving federal district courts "original jurisdiction ... of ... [a]ny civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1). Here, jurisdiction derives from both statute, specifically CIMLA and U.S. admiralty common law. E.g., Ventura Packers, Inc. v. F/V Jeanine Kathleen , 305 F.3d 913, 924, (9th Cir. 2002) (holding "[t]he Maritime Lien Act, 46 U.S.C. § 31342, ... provides a statutory basis for the existence of a district court's admiralty jurisdiction"), cert. denied ...