Atl. Wreck Salvage, LLC v. Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel

• Decision Date: 13 April 2021
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 1:14-CV-03280
• Parties: ATLANTIC WRECK SALVAGE, LLC Plaintiff, v. THE WRECKED AND ABANDONED VESSEL known as the S.S. Carolina, which sank in 1918, her engines, tackle, appurtenances and Cargo, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

ATLANTIC WRECK SALVAGE, LLC Plaintiff, v. THE WRECKED AND ABANDONED VESSELknown as the S.S. Carolina,which sank in 1918, her engines, tackle, appurtenances and Cargo, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:14-CV-03280

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

April 13, 2021

Hon. Joseph H. Rodriguez

OPINION

This matter arises from the Motion to Intervene in the above-captioned case filed by prospective intervenor Rustin Cassway, the vessel RV Explorer and its owner, Research Vessel Explorer, LLC (collectively "Cassway") [Dkt. 38] and Plaintiff Atlantic Wreck Salvage's ("AWS") response and request for sanctions [Dkt. 43]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Cassway's Motion to Intervene, and declines to award sanctions.

I. Factual Background and Procedural History

Cassway seeks to intervene in the above-referenced case, where this Court entered default judgment in favor of AWS on July 19, 2017. [Dkt. 21]. The above-captioned case concerns the salvage rights to the wreck of the S.S. Carolina ("the Carolina").

The Carolina was a passenger and cargo steam ship sunk by German gunfire on June 2, 1918 approximately 94 miles southeast of Sandy Hook, New Jersey. [Cassway Mot., Dkt. 38-1 at 5]. The Carolina's wreck rested unclaimed on the floor of the Atlantic Ocean until John Chatterton located the wreck in 1995 and filed a lawsuit in this Court on November 1, 1995 to arrest the Carolina. See John B. Chatterton v. S.S. Carolina, The Wrecked and Abandoned Vessel, etc., No. 95-cv-5776-JHR. This court issued a Warrant of Arrest, appointing Chatterton the Substitute Custodian of the Wreck. [Compl., Dkt. 1 at ¶ 7-8]. Chatterton also published an open letter to the diving community which informed other divers of the Carolina's location and invited them to dive the wreck. [Dkt. 38-1 at 5]. Cassway alleges that he relied on this open letter and dove on the Carolina, though he does not specify when he began to visit the Carolina or how often he has visited the ship. [Cassway Decl., Dkt. 38-4 at ¶ 3-4]. Chatterton did not renew his salvage rights to the Carolina and is not party to the present intervention motion. [Chatterton Decl., Dkt. 38-2 at ¶ 10].

On May 22, 2014, AWS and its owner Joseph Mazraani filed a complaint in rem against the Carolina to obtain a possessory and ownership claim, a salvage award claim, and a salvage operation claim as to the Carolina. [See generally Compl.]. That day, this Court issued a warrant for the Carolina's arrest. [Dkt. 10]. On June 9, 2014, this Court ordered a special process server to post notice of AWS's claim upon the Carolina's wreck. [Dkt. 11]. On June 16, 2014, this Court ordered the release of the arrest warrant against the Carolina [Dkt. 12], ordered AWS to publish notice of its arrest in a newspaper of general circulation [Dkt. 13], and appointed AWS as the Substitute Custodian of the Carolina. [Dkt. 14]. Pursuant to these orders, AWS affixed notice papers to the wreck on June 15, 2014. [Dkt. 16], and published notice of AWS's arrest of the Carolina in the Press of Atlantic City on June 21, 2014 [Dkt. 15]. AWS also published an article on the NJ Scuba Divers Message Board, an online forum for New Jersey scuba divers, which expressly stated that AWS "has secured an order from US District Judge Joseph Rodriguez arresting what remains of the ... SS Carolina." [Dkt. 43-1 at 16-17]. No one challenged AWS's claim to the Carolina. On June 16, 2017, AWS moved for default judgmentagainst the Carolina. [Dkt. 21], and this Court granted the motion on July 19, 2017. [Dkt. 22]. This default judgment granted AWS exclusive salvage rights to the Carolina. [Id.].

AWS's case against the Carolina remained dormant until August 13, 2020, when AWS filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order against Cassway. [Dkt. 23]. This motion sought to enjoin Cassway "from interfering with or violating AWS's sole and exclusive right to salvage the Defendant vessel, S.S. CAROLINA and own any artifacts recovered therefrom." [Id.]. AWS claimed that Cassway and unnamed third parties participated in salvage dives to the Carolina on or around July 20, 2020 and intended to conduct further dives as early as August 14, 2020. [Dkt. 23-1]. On September 1, 2020, the Court issued an order permanently enjoining Cassway from interfering with AWS's ownership and salvage rights, specifying that "parties may not alter or destroy the S.S. Carolina or remove any items from the S.S. Carolina." [Dkt. 34].

On October 16, 2020, Cassway moved to intervene in AWS's case against the Carolina at issue here. [Dkt. 38]. If permitted to intervene, Cassway alleges that he will move the Court to set aside the default judgment in favor of AWS and/or to dissolve AWS's permanent injunction against Cassway by showing that AWS fraudulently procured default judgment and that AWS has no protectable interest in the Carolina. [Dkt. 38-1 at 13-14].

II. Legal Standard for Intervention

An applicant seeking to intervene in a lawsuit must show that "(1) the application for intervention is timely; (2) the applicant has a sufficient interest in the litigation; (3) the interest may be affected or impaired, as a practical matter by the disposition of the action; and (4) the interest is not adequately represented by an existing party in the litigation." See Harris v. Pernsley, 820 F.2d 592, 596 (3d Cir. 1987) (citing Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Rizzo, 530F.2d 501, 504 (3d Cir. 1976), cert denied sub nom. Fire Fighters Union v. Pennsylvania, 426 U.S. 921 (1976)). "The proposed intervenor has the burden of proving each element and failure to prove any one of the [elements] is sufficient grounds to deny the motion." Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Fishoff, No. CV153725MASDEA, 2016 WL 1262508, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2016) (citing Worthington v. Bayer Healthcare, LLC, No. 11-3299, 2011WL 630999, at *2 (D.N.J. Dec. 15, 2011)). District courts have wide discretion to permit or deny motions to intervene. Donovan v. United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO, 721 F.2d 126, 127 (3d Cir. 1983).

For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that Cassway has not shown that his intervention motion is timely. Cassway's motion therefore fails at element (1), and the Court declines to consider elements (2)-(4).

a. Timeliness

While the timeliness element concerns the amount of time that an applicant waited to intervene, "[t]he mere passage of time ... does not render an application untimely." Benjamin ex rel. Yock v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare of Pa., 701 F.3d 938, 950 (3d Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). Courts in this circuit consider three additional factors: "(1) the stage of the proceeding; (2) the prejudice that delay may cause the parties; and (3) the reason for the delay." Demarco v. Avalonbay Communities., Inc., No. CV15628JLLJAD, 2016 WL 5934704, at *3 (D.N.J. Oct. 12, 2016) (citing Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 223 F.R.D. 326, 328 (D.N.J. 2004)).

i. Factor (1) - Stage of the Proceeding

Factor (1) weighs against intervention because the Court entered default judgment in favor of AWS more than three years before Cassway moved to intervene in this case, and because AWS's 2014 arrest and publication placed Cassway on constructive notice of AWS'sclaim to the Carolina more than six years before Cassway moved to intervene. [Dkt. 22; Dkt. 38]. Post-judgment intervention "is usually disfavored because it creates delay and prejudice to existing parties." United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 801 F.2d 593, 596 (2d Cir. 1986). See also Gaboratory, Inc. v. Gaboratory Int'l, Inc., No. CV 07-04725 MMM (EX), 2008 WL 11406057, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2008) (finding that intervention motion was untimely because it was filed after the court entered default judgment (citing Calvert v. Huckins, 109 F.3d 636, 638 (9th Cir. 1997)). For this reason, "[p]ost-judgment intervention may only be permitted in extraordinary circumstances.'" Bank of Am. Nat. Tr. & Sav. Ass'n v. Hotel Rittenhouse Assocs., 844 F.2d 1050, 1056 (3d Cir. 1988) (citing Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 674 F.2d 970, 974 (3d Cir. 1982)). See also In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 695 F.2d 494, 500 (3d Cir. 1982) ("[A] motion to intervene after entry of a decree should be denied except in extraordinary circumstances." (citations and quotations omitted)).

Due to this strong presumption against post-judgment intervention, courts in this circuit have denied intervention where, as here, an applicant seeks to intervene several years after a court entered judgment. See, e.g., Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975 F.2d 964, 984 (3d Cir. 1992) (upholding denial of motion to intervene based on district court's finding that the motion—filed three years after the judgment at issue—was "grossly untimely"); United States v. Smith, 48 V.I. 544, 548 (D.V.I. Oct. 19, 2006) (finding intervention motion filed four years after default judgment to be untimely). Conversely, courts nationwide have emphasized the lack of final judgment when granting intervention. See, e.g., Colony Nat. Ins. Co. v. Control Bldg. Servs., Inc., No. CIV. 14-CV-5651 WHW, 2015 WL 4757117, at *3 (D.N.J. Aug. 11, 2015) (permitting intervention because "[t]his litigation is in its early stages. Colony has moved for defaultjudgment ... but the Court has not yet ruled on the motion."); Houston Cas. Co. v. Int'l Grand Tours, Inc., No. C07-01188 RMW, 2007 WL 4249906, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2007) ("[B]ecause the court has not entered default judgment, Applicants' motion to intervene does not implicate the concerns of granting intervention following the entry of judgment."); In re Fleck Indus., Inc., 16 B.R. 802, 805 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1982) ("The motion, in the instant case, was filed before the entry of a default judgment in this case.").

Here, Cassway moved to intervene more than three years after the Court entered default judgment in favor of AWS, a delay that other courts have called "grossly...