Madeja v. Olympic Packer, LLC
| Decision Date | 13 July 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV 00-00190 SOM-BMK.,CIV 00-00190 SOM-BMK. |
| Citation | 155 F.Supp.2d 1183 |
| Parties | Sampson O. MADEJA; Jose Rodriguez; Michael Steven Mallars; Solvi P. Olafsson; and Olafur Skagvik, Plaintiffs, v. OLYMPIC PACKER, LLC, In Personam, and M/V Fierce Packer O.N. 546488 her engines, tackle, stores, and equipment freight, In Rem, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii |
Jay Freidheim, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiffs.
John O'Kane, Jr., Michael J. Nakano, Frame, Formby & O'Kane, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO INCREASE BOND, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO REARREST THE VESSEL; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW; ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW; FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER
This admiralty case was tried without a jury. The trial lasted four days. Plaintiffs Sampson O. Madeja ("Madeja"), Jose Rodriguez ("Rodriguez"), Michael Steven Mallars ("Mallars"), Solvi P. Olafsson ("Olafsson"), and Olafur Skagvik ("Skagvik") (collectively "Plaintiffs") brought this action to recover unpaid wages, penalty wages, damages for wrongful discharge, and various other damages from Defendant Olympic Packer, LLC ("Olympic"), in personam, and Defendant M/V Fierce Packer ("Fierce Packer"), in rem (collectively "Defendants"). Plaintiffs assert claims under 46 U.S.C. § 10313 and general maritime law.
The court holds that the Fierce Packer is not liable in rem for further payments not verified in the Complaint. The court finds Olympic liable in personam for unpaid wages owed to Mallars, Olafsson, and Skagvik for their work on the Fierce Packer between February 18, 2000 and the dates they left the Fierce Packer in March 2000. Olympic is also liable in personam for charges Olafsson incurred in renting a car to do the Fierce Packer's business between February 21 and March 17, 2000, and for telephone charges incurred by Skagvik between February 17 and March 5, 2000, in connection with Olympic Packer's business. The court denies all other claims by Plaintiffs, including claims for penalty wages and wrongful discharge. Accordingly, the court awards Rodriguez no damages; awards Mallars his wages from February 18 through March 5, 2000, plus prejudgment interest on those wages; awards Olafsson his wages from February 18 through March 17, 2000, plus car rental costs from February 21 through March 17, 2000, and prejudgment interest; and awards Skagvik his wages from February 18 through March 5, 2000, plus certain telephone costs and prejudgment interest.
On June 26, 2001, Plaintiffs moved to increase the security bond posted by Olympic Packer to release the vessel from arrest. Plaintiffs argue that their damages exceed the $135,000 bond posted by Olympic Packer on March 17, 2000. Because the court awards Plaintiffs less than the $135,000 bond, the court denies Plaintiffs' Motion To Increase Bond, or in the Alternative, To Rearrest the Vessel. The bond is ordered released, as no judgment is issuing against the Fierce Packer in rem.
MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW.
During the course of the trial, both Plaintiffs and Defendants brought motions for judgment as a matter of law under Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(c). The court took the motions under advisement but now denies both motions. The matters raised by the motions are best addressed in a full consideration of all the facts of this case and all of the applicable law. The court includes consideration of the issues raised in the motions in its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.
Whenever, in the following discussion, this court has mistakenly designated as conclusions of law what are really findings of fact, and vice versa, the court's statements shall have the effect they would have had if properly designated.
This bench trial was conducted in accordance with this court's trial procedures for civil nonjury trials. Pursuant to this court's Trial Procedures Memorandum, direct examinations of the following witnesses were submitted in the form of written declarations: Rodriguez, Olafsson, Mallars, Skagvik, Kim Hansen, and Steven Marsh. All of these witnesses appeared for live cross-examination and live redirect examination.1 Testimony by Paul Schultz was by deposition designations in lieu of live testimony. Based on the testimony and the exhibits received in evidence, the court finds the following by a preponderance of the evidence. The findings of fact include findings only on those issues necessary for and relevant to this ruling.
The Charter Agreement.
1. Olympic, a limited liability corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington, is the legal owner of the Fierce Packer, a 163-foot vessel weighing 188 gross tons. See Edited Declaration of Kim Hansen (July 3, 2001) ("Hansen Dec.") ¶ 1. Olympic acquired the Fierce Packer in 1997. See Mallars Trial Testimony. The Fierce Packer was previously used by Olympic for fishing in waters off of Alaska, Korea, and Russia. See Hansen Dec. ¶ 1.
2. Kim Hansen Enterprises, Inc. ("KHE") is a member of Olympic and is also the vessel manager for the Fierce Packer. See Hansen Dec. ¶ 1; Deposition of Paul A. Schultz (March 17, 2000) ("Schultz Depo.") at 14; Second Edited Declaration of Michael Steven Mallars (June 29, 2001) ("Mallars Dec.") ¶ 23. Kim Hansen ("Hansen") is the president of KHE. See Hansen Dec. ¶¶ 4, 17. Paul Schultz ("Schultz") is employed by KHE as its vessel operations manager, and KHE has assigned management of the Fierce Packer to him. See Hansen Dec. ¶ 4; Edited Declaration of Olafur Skagvik (June 29, 2001) ("Skagvik Dec.") ¶ 39; Schultz Depo. at 6, 9. Schultz was in charge of the vessel whenever it was in its home port of Seattle. See Edited Declaration of Solvi P. Olafsson (June 29, 2001) ("Olafsson Dec.") ¶ 13; Olafsson Trial Testimony.
3. The court finds that, for purposes of this case, Hansen and Schultz had the authority to speak on behalf of Olympic and did so in matters such as the hiring and paying of crew members for Olympic.
4. On previous Fierce Packer voyages for Olympic Packer, Schultz had been responsible for hiring and paying the crew. See Olafsson Trial Testimony; Mallars Dec. ¶ 63; Schultz Depo. at 150. Steven A. Marsh ("Marsh") was the controller for Olympic and for KHE during all times relevant to this lawsuit. See Declaration of Steven A. Marsh ("Marsh Dec.") ¶ 1.
5. In 1999, activity in the fishing industry in Alaska and Russia lessened. See Hansen Dec. ¶ 2. The Fierce Packer was then no longer profitable in the fishing trade. See Hansen Dec. ¶ 2. In September or October 1999, Ron Ellis ("Ellis") contacted KHE about the possibility of purchasing or chartering the Fierce Packer. See Hansen Dec. ¶ 2. Following preliminary discussions, the Fierce Packer was chartered to Interisland Maritime Services, Inc. ("IMAR") on November 29, 1999. See Hansen Dec. ¶ 3.
6. Ellis signed the charter as president of IMAR on November 19, 1999. See Defendants' Ex. 001 (Bareboat Charter Agreement). However, although Olympic did not know it at the time, IMAR had not yet been incorporated as of that date. IMAR was not incorporated until December 3, 1999. See Plaintiffs' Ex. 82 (Articles of Incorporation) at 1.
7. The charter agreement was titled "Bareboat Charter Agreement." See Defendants' Ex. 001 (Bareboat Charter Agreement) at 1. Under the terms of the agreement, IMAR was to pay $1600 per day for the charter, payable in advance every fifteen days. See Defendants' Ex. 001 (Bareboat Charter Agreement) at 2. IMAR was responsible for operating expenses, supplies, crew payments, maintenance, repairs, and insurance for the Fierce Packer during the charter period. See Defendants' Ex. 001 (Bareboat Charter Agreement) at 1-4. However, because IMAR did not pay for insurance for the vessel during the charter, Olympic purchased insurance at Olympic's expense during IMAR's charter. See Hansen Trial Testimony; Marsh Trial Testimony.
8. During the IMAR charter period, neither Olympic nor KHE had any control over the crew or navigation of the Fierce Packer. See Olafsson Trial Testimony; Mallars Trial Testimony; Skagvik Trial Testimony. Nor did Olympic Packer control the hiring of the crew. See Olafsson Trial Testimony; Mallars Trial Testimony; Skagvik Trial Testimony. Olympic acted in accord with the charter document in giving full control of the Fierce Packer and its crew to IMAR or Ellis.
IMAR Charter Period.
9. During the course of charter discussions, Ellis inquired as to the availability of crew for the Fierce Packer. See Hansen Dec. ¶ 4. Schultz informed Skagvik of Ellis' inquiry. See Hansen Dec. ¶ 4; Schultz Depo. at 130. Skagvik had been previously employed by Olympic and had been the master of the Fierce Packer on a number of voyages. See Hansen Dec. ¶ 4; Schultz Depo. at 130. Ellis agreed to hire Skagvik and asked him to get a crew together. See Schultz Depo. at 131.
10. Ellis hired Skagvik to be the captain (or "master") of the Fierce Packer on November 29, 1999. See Skagvik Dec. ¶ 6. Ellis orally promised to pay Skagvik $275 per day for his work on the Fierce Packer during the IMAR charter. See Skagvik Dec. ¶¶ 3, 4. Skagvik never signed a written contract with Ellis for this employment. See Skagvik Trial Testimony.
11. On November 29, 1999, Ellis also hired Mallars as chief engineer for the Fierce Packer. See Mallars Dec. ¶ 6; Mallars Trial Testimony. Ellis orally promised to pay Mallars $250 per day for his work on the Fierce Packer during the IMAR charter. See Mallars Dec. ¶ 6. Mallars did not sign a written contract with Ellis for his employment. See Mallars Trial Testimony. Ellis showed Mallars a document titled "Master Contract for Employment on the M/V Fierce Packer." See Mallars Trial Testimony; Defendants' Ex. 002 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnes v. Sea Haw. Rafting, LLC
...and defendants that successfully objected to in rem jurisdiction. See Madeja , 310 F.3d at 637 ; see also Madeja v. Olympic Packer, LLC , 155 F.Supp.2d 1183, 1211 (D. Haw. 2001). It is inapplicable here. The district court erred in dismissing the Tehani for lack of in rem jurisdiction.C. Th......
-
Television Events & Marketing v. Amcon Distrib.
...Generally, promoters are liable for contracts they make on behalf of a corporation they intend to organize. Madeja v. Olympic Packer, LLC, 155 F.Supp.2d 1183, 1204 (D.Haw.2001). While Distributing has acknowledged the existence of a "promotion," Defendants assert that "there is no promoter ......
-
Lieblong v. Abella
...of a complete transfer is not a bareboat or demise charter. See Guzman, 369 U.S. at 699, 82 S. Ct. 1095. Madeja v. Olympic Packer, LLC, 155 F. Supp. 2d 1183, 1203 (D. Hawai'i 2001), aff'd , 310 F.3d 628 (9th Cir. 2002). A demise or bareboat charter need not be in writing; it "may be implied......
-
Barnes v. Sea Haw. Rafting, LLC
...failure to verify their complaint deprived the district court of in rem jurisdiction."); see also Madeja v. Olympic Packer, LLC, 155 F. Supp. 2d 1183, 1211 (D. Haw. 2001), aff'd 310 F.3d 628 (9th Cir. 2002) ("The failure to verify a claim will result in the denial of the maritime lien."); G......