JSM Marine LLC v. Gaughf

Decision Date11 September 2019
Docket NumberCIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:18-cv-151
Citation407 F.Supp.3d 1358
Parties JSM MARINE LLC, Plaintiff, v. Claudia N. GAUGHF, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

Philip M. Thompson, Jason Carl Pedigo, Ellis, Painter, Ratterree & Adams LLP, Savannah, GA, for Plaintiffs.

Neil Matthew Monroe, N. Matthew Monroe, P.C., Valdosta, GA, for Defendant.

ORDER

R. STAN BAKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On June 19, 2018, Plaintiff JSM Marine LLC filed a Complaint in Admiralty seeking an award of $7,144.00, pursuant to the law of salvage, for services rendered to Defendant Claudia N. Gaughf's vessel—the MIST APPROACH—following Hurricane Matthew in October of 2016. (Doc. 1.) Presently before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Attorney's Fees, (doc. 16), and Defendant's counter Motion for Attorney's Fees, (doc. 31). Both matters have been fully briefed and are ripe for resolution. (See Docs. 16, 23, 36 (Briefing on Plaintiff's Motion); 31, 37, 39 (Briefing on Defendant's Motion).)

Plaintiff seeks summary judgment on both liability and damages, claiming that the services it rendered to the MIST APPROACH constitute maritime salvage. (Doc. 16.) Briefly stated, the parties in this case primarily dispute whether the MIST APPROACH was in "marine peril" as a matter of law when Plaintiff rendered its services to recover the vessel and, thus, whether Plaintiff is due an award under the law of salvage for those services. (See Docs. 16, 23, 36.) As for attorney's fees, the parties dispute the reasonableness of Defendant's position that the vessel was not in "marine peril" and related discovery issues. (See Docs. 16, 23, 31, 36, 37, 39.)

After careful consideration and for the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Attorney's Fees, (doc. 16), and DENIES Defendant's Motion for Attorney's Fees, (doc. 31). The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $7,144.00. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to respond within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order with additional evidence regarding the amount and scope of attorney's fees requested, Local R. 54.2, and ORDERS Defendant to respond within twenty-one (21) days from Plaintiff's filing with any opposition, Local R. 7.5.

BACKGROUND

On October 7, 2016, Hurricane Matthew made landfall in the Savannah, Georgia area. (Doc. 16, p. 2.) It caused considerable damage along the Wilmington River where the salvage at issue occurred. (Id. ) The hurricane "destroyed" Defendant Claudia N. Gaughf's "dock and the boatlift securing [her] vessel," the MIST APPROACH.1 (Doc. 23, p. 2.) In the process, Hurricane Matthew deposited the MIST APPROACH, which had been fastened to the raised boat lift, directly beside a dock located four houses down from Defendant's waterfront residence along the Wilmington River. (Id. at pp. 1–2.) The hurricane pulled the vessel "away from its mooring and pushed it partially ashore" down river. (Doc. 16-2, p. 3; doc. 16-3, p. 2.) The MIST APPROACH came to rest on, and was surrounded by, hurricane debris. (Doc. 23, p. 2.) From this position, the MIST APPROACH was at least partially grounded with its bow resting on a rocky area of the river bank and its starboard side touching the dock's second piling from the shore. (See Doc. 25-1, pp. 1–13 (photographs provided by Defendant taken prior to salvage); doc. 16-4, pp. 10–23, 28 (photographs provided by Plaintiff taken at the time of salvage); see also doc. 16-5, pp. 2–14 (higher quality versions of Defendant's photographs, filed by Plaintiff).) It remained in this position until Plaintiff removed the vessel on October 18, 2016. (Doc. 23, p. 3.)

When Hurricane Matthew made landfall, Defendant and her husband, Mr. Scott Birthisel, were evacuated out of state and did not return home until October 9, 2016. (Id. at pp. 1–2.) During the interim, Mr. Birthisel reported the hurricane to the vessel's insurance company and had an individual named Leon Barnard tie the vessel to the adjacent dock. (Id. at p. 2; doc. 32, pp. 3–5.) Following the hurricane, Plaintiff JSM Marine LLC, a company specializing in marine construction, towing, salvage, and related operations, came to the Wilmington River to provide its services in the post-hurricane cleanup and recovery effort. (Doc. 16, p. 4.) Upon first surveying the relevant scene, Plaintiff's general manager, Mr. Karl Robin Rodgers, noticed the MIST APPROACH sitting "aground" on the "riprap bank of the river and surrounded in debris." (Id. )

At this time, however, Plaintiff did not perform any salvage services on the MIST APPROACH, despite Mr. Rodgers' opinion that the vessel faced the specter of additional damage due to its precarious position. (Id. at pp. 4–5.) Plaintiff declined assist to the MIST APPROACH initially because it "was engaged in other work at the time." (Id. at p. 5.) Days later, before engaging in the salvage operation, Mr. Rodgers approached the persons occupying the property where the MIST APPROACH lay to inquire if they were the owners of the boat, and discovered they were not. (Id. ) Nonetheless, Mr. Rodgers asked for, and received, their permission to access the river bluff located on their property in order to salvage the vessel. (Id. )

Meanwhile, Mr. Birthisel had returned to the area and began periodically checking on the MIST APPROACH. (Doc. 23, pp. 4, 10.) Over the course of at least five visits, the MIST APPROACH remained unmoved and tied to the neighbor's dock without incurring any additional damage.2 (Id. ) On October 17, 2018, the day before Plaintiff engaged in salvage operations, an adjuster of the vessel's insurer, Mr. Robert Egbert, came to inspect, and he did not observe any severe structural damage. (Id. at p. 3.) According to Defendant, the "vessel was basically immobilized due to the debris." (Id. ) Further, Defendant states the vessel was not leaking any fuel or lubricant, had not taken on any water, and had not sustained any observable damage from the dock or from nearby rocks and debris.3 (Id. at pp. 3–4.) From the end of Hurricane Matthew until Plaintiff retrieved the boat from the debris, Defendant asserts the MIST APPROACH had been in the same situation for over a week and "sustained no damage as a result of that situation." (Id. at p. 4.) Defendant's insurer had planned to "arrange for someone to tow the vessel from [its] location," but Plaintiff's salvage operation took place before these arrangements could be made. (Id. at p. 3.)

On October 18, 2016, Plaintiff returned to the subject portion of the Wilmington River and salvaged the MIST APPROACH. (Doc. 16, p. 5.) Plaintiff was unsuccessful in its attempt to identify and contact Defendant, and so it undertook the salvage operation without Defendant's permission.4 (Id. at pp. 5, 7.) Indeed, Plaintiff rendered salvage services to the MIST APPROACH without "being required to do so by existing duty or special contract." (Id. at p. 5.) According to Plaintiff, the day of salvage was the first time it "approached the vessel closely enough to see its condition." (Id. ) Upon inspection, Plaintiff asserts the MIST APPROACH was: "grounded on rocky riprap" and "chafing against the piling of [the dock]"; "had sustained hull, rail, and engine damage; and was surrounded by debris that was itself chafing against the boat." (Id. ) Plaintiff did not observe and was never aware of anyone tending to the vessel. (Id. at p. 7.)

The salvage operation to extricate the MIST APPROACH from its temporary resting place was no easy task. "It took [Plaintiff] with a crew of four individuals roughly 40 man-hours over the course of a full day's work to remove the vessel from its perilous condition and deliver it to safe storage." (Id. at p. 8.) In this process, Plaintiff utilized a 130-foot barge, a 35-ton crane, a push boat, a work skiff, tackle gear and slings, a truck with an attached trailer, and other equipment. (Id. ) To retrieve the MIST APPROACH, Plaintiff had to cut away rock debris, rig the vessel to the crane, and use the crane to lift the vessel from its debris-laden position. (Id. ) Once Plaintiff lifted the MIST APPROACH by crane, it placed the vessel in the Wilmington River and towed it by boat to a nearby ramp, where it was then put on a trailer and transported to a storage facility for safekeeping. (Id. ) Plaintiff's salvage of the MIST APPROACH was successful, and no additional damage was inflicted during the process.5 (Id. ) Based on the amount of time, resources, and labor expended by Plaintiff—and in consideration of the vessel's estimated repair cost (ranging from $36,546 to $38,696) as well as its estimated post-casualty value (ranging from $30,000 to $35,000)Plaintiff invoiced Defendant in the amount of $7,144.00 for the salvage services. (Id. )

From Defendant's perspective, however, Plaintiff's services were unwanted and the vessel's removal unnecessary. (Doc. 23, p. 4.) In fact, when Mr. Birthisel became aware the MIST APPROACH had been moved, he reported it missing to the Chatham County Marine Patrol. (Id. at p. 5.) As a result, Mr. Rodgers was arrested and charged with felony theft by taking, but that charge was dismissed and disposed of on August 27, 2019, by an order of nolle prosequi.6 When Defendant eventually learned that Plaintiff's aim was to conduct a lawful salvage of the MIST APPROACH, she refused to pay for the invoiced services. (Doc. 16, p. 9.)

Plaintiff and Defendant attempted to settle the matter but quickly became mired in contentious negotiations that failed. (See id. at pp. 9–11; doc. 23, pp. 14–17.) On June 19, 2018, Plaintiff JSM Marine LLC filed the instant Complaint in Admiralty seeking recovery of a salvage award in the amount of $7,144.00. (Doc. 1.) After a less than amicable discovery period, (see, e.g., docs. 31, 36, 39), the case is now before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Attorney's Fees, (doc. 16), and Defendant's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Asia Mar. Pac. Chartering Ltd. v. A. Cayume Hakh & Sons
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • March 16, 2020
    ...responded in substance to Defendant's argument regarding fees. In support of its argument, Defendant relies on JSM Marine LLC v. Gaughf, 407 F. Supp. 3d 1358, 1377 (S.D. Ga. 2019), in which the court stated that[a]ttorneys' fees will be awarded to the prevailing party in maritime cases if: ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT