Loginter S.A. Y Parque Indust. v. M/V Nobility, CIV.A. WMN-00-3448.

• Decision Date: 10 September 2001
• Docket Number: No. CIV.A. WMN-00-3448.,CIV.A. WMN-00-3448.
• Citation: 177 F.Supp.2d 411
• Parties: LOGINTER S.A. Y PARQUE INDUSTRIAL AGUA PROFUNDA S.A. UTE, et. al., v. M/V NOBILITY, in rem.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

Page 411

177 F.Supp.2d 411

LOGINTER S.A. Y PARQUE INDUSTRIAL AGUA PROFUNDA S.A. UTE, et. al., v. M/V NOBILITY, in rem.

No. CIV.A. WMN-00-3448.

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

September 10, 2001.

Andrew M. Winick, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman and Dicker, LLP, Baltimore, MD, James W. Bartlett, III, Semmes, Bowen and Semmes, PC, Baltimore, MD, for Loginster S.A. Y Parque Industrial Agua Profunda S.A. Ute.

David McI. Williams, Charles L. Simmons, Jr., Gorman & Williams, Baltimore, MD, for Canton Maritime Services, Inc.

Geoffrey S. Tobias, Ober, Kaler, Grimes and Shriver, Baltimore, MD, for Clipper Bulk Shipping, Ltd.

J. Stephen Simms, W. Charles Bailey, Jr., Greber & Simms, Baltimore, MD, Sarah Elizabeth Parshall, Owings Mills, MD, for intervenor-plaintiffs.

James D. Skeen, David W. Skeen, Wright, Constable and Skeen, LLP, Baltimore, MD, for Estonian Maritime Agency, Ltd.

MEMORANDUM

NICKERSON, District Judge.

This admiralty action is before the Court on the parties' cross-motions and one party's unopposed motion for summary judgment. The motions are fully briefed and ripe for decision. Upon a review of the pleadings and the applicable case law, the Court determines that no hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6.

I. BACKGROUND

The parties' motions, involving no fewer than eight entities from seven countries, present the Court with a virtual "world tour" through the waters-and laws-of many nations. Plaintiffs in this action claim that they have maritime liens against the in rem defendant, the M/V NOBILITY. The owner of the vessel is Fenice Marine Ltd. ("Fenice"), an entity organized under the laws of Malta. The claimant in this Court is the vessel's long term time charterer, Clipper Bulk Shipping, Ltd. ("Clipper Bulk"), of the Bahamas. The following facts are undisputed.

From October 13, 2000, through early December, 2000, the M/V NOBILITY was on charter from Clipper Bulk to Hawkspere Shipping Co., Ltd. ("Hawkspere"), of the Bahamas. Hawkspere acted through its agent in England, Serac.

Plaintiff Poseidon & Frachtcontor Junge, Ltd. ("Poseidon") served as the husbanding agent for the M/V NOBILITY during its call at the Port of Szczecin, Poland, on October 16 and 17, 2000. Poseidon provided and arranged for routine services (such as loading cargo and hiring tugs) for the vessel while in port. Poseidon billed Hawkspere, through its agent Serac, $21,589.57 for services rendered and advance payments made by Poseidon to various vendors who tended to the ship.¹ Hawkspere has not paid Poseidon.

On October 24, 2000, the M/V NOBILITY received bunkers in the Port of St. Petersberg, Russia. The bunkers were delivered to the vessel by the Baltic Bunkering Company ("Baltic"), of Russia. Arrangements for the delivery of the bunkers were made by a broker for Hawkspere and Serac, J.B. Marine of England. Hawkspere, through J.B. Marine, then received an invoice from plaintiff Northwest Bunkering, Inc. ("Northwest"), of Liechtenstein, for the amount of $72,350.00 for the bunkers. Clipper Bulk and Northwest dispute whether Hawkspere's bunkering contract was with Baltic or Northwest, which will be addressed infra. There is no dispute, however, that the amount due has not been paid.

Plaintiff Canton Maritime Services, Inc. ("Canton"), a Maryland corporation, provided stevedoring and dockage services to the M/V NOBILITY in the Port of Baltimore from approximately November 9 through December 1, 2000. Canton billed Hawkspere and Serac for the amount of $76,290.14, which remains unpaid.

On November 22, 2000, the M/V NOBILITY was arrested in Baltimore by the initial plaintiff in this case, Loginter S.A. Y Parque Industrial Agua Profunda S.A. UTE ("Loginter") pursuant to Supplemental Rule C of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, authorizing the arrest of a vessel subject to an action in rem.² Plaintiffs Canton, Poseidon, and Northwest subsequently intervened in this action and now move for summary judgment against the M/V NOBILITY in rem.³ Claimant Clipper Bulk cross-moves for summary judgment against Poseidon and Northwest; Canton's motion for summary judgment is unopposed.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A party seeking summary judgment bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis of its motion and identifying the portions of the opposing party's case which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The non-moving party is entitled to have "all reasonable inferences ... drawn in its respective favor." Felty v. Graves-Humphreys Co., 818 F.2d 1126, 1129 (4th Cir. 1987).

If the movant demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, the non-moving party must, in order to withstand the motion for summary judgment, produce sufficient evidence in the form of depositions, affidavits or other documentation which demonstrates that a triable issue of fact exists for trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Unsupported speculation is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Felty, 818 F.2d at 1128 (citing Ash v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 800 F.2d 409, 411-12 (4th Cir.1986)).

When both parties file motions for summary judgment, the court applies the same standards of review. Taft Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 929 F.2d 240, 248 (6th Cir.1991); ITCO Corp. v. Michelin Tire Corp., 722 F.2d 42, 45 n. 3 (4th Cir.1983) ("The court is not permitted to resolve genuine issues of material facts on a motion for summary judgment—even where ... both parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment") (emphasis omitted), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1215, 105 S.Ct. 1191, 84 L.Ed.2d 337 (1985). The role of the court is to "rule on each party's motion on an individual and separate basis, determining, in each case, whether a judgment may be entered in accordance with the Rule 56 standard." Towne Mgmt. Corp. v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co., 627 F.Supp. 170, 172 (D.Md.1985) (quoting Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2720 (2d ed.1993)). See also Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Heidrick, 774 F.Supp. 352, 356 (D.Md. 1991). "[C]ross-motions for summary judgment do not automatically empower the court to dispense with the determination whether questions of material fact exist." Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Voigt, 700 F.2d 341, 349 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 805, 104 S.Ct. 53, 78 L.Ed.2d 72 (1983). "Rather, the court must evaluate each party's motion on its own merits, taking care in each instance to draw all reasonable inferences against the party whose motion is under consideration." Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387, 1391 (Fed.Cir.1987). Both motions may be denied. See Shook v. United States, 713 F.2d 662, 665 (11th Cir.1983).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Canton

Canton contends that the debts owed to it by Hawkspere and Serac give rise to a maritime lien against the M/V NOBILITY under the Federal Maritime Lien Act (F.M.L.A.), 46 U.S.C. § 31342, which states:

Establishing maritime liens

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person providing necessaries to a vessel on the order of the owner or a person authorized by the owner—

(1) has a maritime lien on the vessel;

(2) may bring a civil action in rem to enforce the lien; and

(3) is not required to allege or prove in the action that credit was given to the vessel.

(b) This section does not apply to a public vessel.

46 U.S.C. § 31342.

"Necessaries" are defined in the F.M.L.A. as including repairs, supplies, towage, and the use of a dry dock or marine railway. 46 U.S.C. § 31301(4). Courts have expanded on the meaning of necessaries by including "most goods or services that are useful to the vessel, keep her out of danger, and enable her to perform her particular function...." Foss Launch & Tug Co. v. Char Ching Shipping U.S.A., Ltd., 808 F.2d 697, 699 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting Equilease Corp. v. M/V SAMPSON, 793 F.2d 598, 603 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc)). Stevedoring and dockage services such as those provided by Canton to the M/V NOBILITY have been deemed necessaries under § 31301(4). See, e.g., Ameejee Valleejee & Sons v. M/V VICTORIA, 661 F.2d 310, 311, 1982 AMC 1557 (4th Cir.1981); Ceres Marine Terminals Inc. v. M/V HARMEN OLDEN-DORFF, 913 F.Supp. 919, 927 n. 12, 1995 AMC 2769 (D.Md.1995).

It is undisputed that the necessaries provided by Canton were ordered by Hawkspere, charterer of the vessel, through its agent Serac. Under the F.M.L.A., an agent appointed by a charterer of a vessel is presumed to have authority to procure necessaries. 46 U.S.C. § 31341. Clipper Bulk has not opposed Canton's motion for summary judgment, and thus the presumption has not been rebutted.

Based on the above, the Court finds that as a matter of law Canton has met the F.M.L.A. requirements for establishing a maritime lien.

B. Northwest Bunkering

The parties' dispute over Northwest's claim is essentially about whose contract terms control the St. Petersburg bunker transaction. The Court finds, however, that determining the answer to that deceptively simple-sounding question does not resolve this case, as explained below. But in the interest of completeness, the Court will address the parties' arguments, only to conclude that when all is said and done, they are not dispositive of the matter at hand.

The parties agree that the M/V NOBILITY was provided with bunkers in port at St. Petersberg, Russia, on October 24, 2000. The parties further agree that the...