Angelette, LLC v. Bradley
| Docket Number | 1:22-cv-00055-JMK,1:22-cv-00059-JMK |
| Decision Date | 26 May 2023 |
| Parties | ANGELETTE, LLC, an Alaska limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. RYAN BRADLEY, an individual, LYUDA GORBACHUK, an individual, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
Before the Court at Dockets 17 and 18 are motions for summary judgment by Plaintiff Angelette, LLC, and Defendants Ryan Bradley and Lyuda Gorbachuk. The motions are fully briefed.[1]Oral argument was not requested and is not deemed necessary.
This case concerns a dispute over the interpretation of a maritime employment contract between Plaintiff-which owns a commercial fishing vessel, the F/V ANGELETTE-and Defendants, two deckhands. The facts of this case are straightforward, and the parties have not identified any disputed facts. Plaintiff employed Defendants as deckhands on the F/V ANGELETTE during the 2019 Prince William Sound salmon fishing season, which took place from approximately June 15, 2019, through September 15 2019.[2]The parties entered into a written contract pursuant to which Plaintiff agreed to compensate Defendants by paying them a share of the vessel's revenue from fish sold during the fishing season.[3]The contract provides as follows:
Compensation. Crew Member shall receive in full payment for all services, the following share: 1200/100% of the Vessel's gross stock (based on cash actually received by the Vessel for fish sold) after fuel, lube oil and food have been deducted. The crew will be responsible for the payment of all fuel and lube oil. Expenses begin at the time the Vessel leaves port. The compensation will be paid 30 days after the close of the fishing effort for the season. The share will be the sole compensation for Crew Member. All work performed by Crew Member in terms of making the Vessel ready for sea, repairs and taking the Vessel out of service shall be paid for by the share and shall not entitle Crew Member to extra compensation. Crew Member is not entitled to any part of any post-contract adjustment paid to owner/operator as part of a loyalty or performance incentive paid by any fish buyer.[4]
After the 2019 fishing season ended, Plaintiff paid Defendants their respective 12% shares of the revenue generated from the F/V ANGELETTE's catch.[5]On June 8, 2020, Plaintiff paid Defendants their share of a price adjustment issued in relation to the fish sold during the 2019 fishing season.[6]
There is no indication that, under usual circumstances, Defendants would have anticipated receiving any further compensation in relation to their work from the 2019 fishing season. However, in September 2020, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) announced the Seafood Trade Relief Program (the “STRP”), a temporary new program intended to “provide financial assistance to commercial fishermen for expanding or aiding in the expansion of domestic markets for U.S. commercially caught and sold seafood.”[7]USDA's stated justification for the STRP was that “seafood commodities have been impacted by trade actions of foreign governments resulting in the loss of exports.”[8]Through the program, USDA provided payments to U.S. commercial fishermen who held a commercial fishing permit to harvest seafood and had “an ownership interest in the production” of eligible seafood produced in “the 2020 calendar year.”[9]USDA intended the payments to “reflect the estimated severity of the impact of trade disruptions to U.S. seafood caught and sold commercially, and the adjustment to new trade patterns for” seafood products USDA identified as impacted by the foreign trade actions.[10]Salmon made the list of seafood products eligible for payment, and USDA paid eligible commercial fishermen $0.16 per pound of salmon produced in 2019.[11]Neither the Federal Register notice announcing the STRP nor the public materials following the announcement identified any conditions on commercial fishermen's use of the payments received from the program, such as a requirement that commercial fishermen distribute any portion of the payment to any other entity, including crewmembers.[12]
Plaintiff applied for-and, on October 22, 2020, received-a STRP payment based on the quantity of salmon it produced in 2019.[13]It did not share any portion of this payment with Defendants.[14] In April and May 2022, Defendants filed notices of claim of maritime lien against the F/V ANGELETTE in the amount of $40,000 each based on contentions that Plaintiff owed them a share of the STRP payment as part of their wages for the 2019 fishing season.[15]In a declaration, Bradley states that the sole member of Plaintiff, Jay Thomassen, informed him that the STRP payment “is for returning crew only” and that “[e]very other vessel owner [he] know[s] . . . shared the trade relief bonus with their crew.”[16]Plaintiff has not disclosed to the Court the value of the STRP payment it received.[17]
Plaintiff commenced this action in May 2022, claiming it paid Defendants “all wages earned” and “no money is owed giving rise to a maritime lien assertable against the Vessel ANGELETTE.”[18]Defendants asserted a counterclaim against Plaintiff seeking respective 12% shares of the STRP payment, wage penalties pursuant[19]to Alaska Stat. § 23.05.140, and punitive damages under general maritime law.[20]
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), courts must “grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” The moving party bears the burden of showing that “there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.”[21]If the moving party meets this burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to “designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'”[22] The nonmoving party cannot rely on “mere allegations or denials”; instead, the evidence must be such “that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”[23]
In reviewing the record on a motion for summary judgment, courts must “view the facts and draw reasonable inferences” in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.[24] If “both parties assert[] that there are no uncontested issues of material fact,” courts still must “determine whether disputed issues of material fact are present.”[25]However, when the non-moving party's version of the facts is “blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.”[26]Similarly, no genuine dispute exists “where the only evidence presented is ‘uncorroborated and selfserving' testimony.”[27]
In a case such as this, where both parties have moved for summary judgment, courts must “evaluate each motion separately, giving the nonmoving party in each instance the benefit of all reasonable inferences.”[28]In evaluating the parties' motions, “the court must consider each party's evidence, regardless under which motion the evidence is offered.”[29]
The parties' dispute centers on an interpretation of the contract between Plaintiff and Defendants and, specifically, whether the contract entitles Defendants to additional compensation in the form of a share of the STRP payment. If the contract entitles Defendants to a share of the STRP payment, Defendants will prevail on their wage claims and Plaintiff will not be entitled to a declaration invalidating the maritime liens filed against the F/V ANGELETTE. If the contract does not entitle Defendants to a share of the STRP payment, their wage claims fail and Plaintiff will be entitled to its requested declaration. The Court begins by restating general principles of maritime contract interpretation and the parties' arguments and then applies those principles to the arguments.
Federal maritime law applies to maritime contracts.[30]Although courts may consider state law to interpret maritime contracts to the extent state law does not conflict with federal maritime law,[31]federal courts generally “interpret and resolve disputes concerning maritime contracts according to federal law.”[32]
When interpreting maritime contracts under federal law, courts apply “[b]asic principles in the common law of contracts.”[33]In the Ninth Circuit, courts consider the foundational elements of contract law articulated in the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS.[34]Thus, courts must look to the contract terms' “ordinary meaning, and whenever possible, the plain[35]language of the contract should be considered first.”[36]In so doing, courts should read maritime contracts “naturally.”[37]Absent a compelling reason, courts should not “contravene [a] clause's obvious meaning.”[38]
Summary judgment is appropriate in cases involving contractual interpretation “only if the contract or contract provision in question is unambiguous.”[39] Accordingly, courts first must determine whether the contract is ambiguous, that is, whether the relevant provisions are “reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation.”[40] “Only if the language is ambiguous . . . should a court examine extrinsic evidence and look beyond the written language of the contract.”[41]
In determining whether ambiguity exists, several principles warrant consideration. First, a finding of ambiguity requires more than mere “uncertainty or lack of clarity” in the contract's language.[42]Second, ambiguity generally does not arise from mere disagreement about a contract's terms.[43]Third, “silence does not equate to an ambiguity.”[44]Courts generally find silence...
To continue reading
Request your trial