Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02952/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02952-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEL MAR SEAFOODS INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BARRY COHEN, CHRIS COHEN (aka

CHRISTINE COHEN), in personam and, F/V

POINT LOMA, Official Number 515298, a

1968 steel-hulled, 126-gross ton, 70.8 foot long

fishing vessel, her engines, tackle, furniture

apparel, etc., in rem, and Does 1-10,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-02952 WHA

ORDER DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS

AND VACATING HEARING

INTRODUCTION

In this maritime action for breach of a promissory note, plaintiff moves to dismiss a

counterclaims asserted by defendants Barry and Christene Cohen. This order finds that the

Cohens have standing to assert the counterclaims herein. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is

DENIED.

STATEMENT

On June 7, 2007, plaintiff Del Mar Seafoods filed a verified complaint for breach of

contract and foreclosure of a preferred ship’s mortgage against defendants Barry and Christene

Cohen, as well as the F/V Point Loma, a 70.8-foot long fishing vessel (Compl. ¶¶ 18–27).

Case 3:07-cv-02952-WHA Document 75 Filed 08/27/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Also on June 7, the Court issued an order for the arrest of the vessel pursuant to

Supplemental Admiralty Rule C of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The vessel was

subsequently arrested by the U.S. Marshal and placed in the care of a substitute custodian,

where it currently remains (Poulos Decl. ¶ 3). An order dated August 16, 2007, vacated the

order of arrest.

On June 15, 2007, defendants and a previously unnamed entity, the F/V Point Loma

Fishing Company, Inc., filed a verified Claim to the vessel. On June 25, 2007, an answer to the

complaint was filed on behalf of the defendants and the F/V Point Loma Fishing Company

(Docket No. 25).

The verified answer stated that at the time the promissory note and ship mortgage at

issue were signed, Barry and Christene Cohen were the owners of the vessel. The ownership

has since been transferred to the F/V Point Loma Fishing Company, subject to the ship

mortgage (Ans. ¶ 7).

Defendants and claimant F/V Point Loma Fishing Company counterclaimed in the

answer to the complaint. Defendants and claimant alleged that the arrest was unlawful because

there was no default under the promissory note and thus that the vessel had been seized without

cause. The counterclaim alleged that plaintiff interfered with defendants’ prospective economic

advantage because the wrongful arrest of the vessel interrupted the fishing activities of the

vessel and prevented defendants from earning an income (Ans. ¶¶ 39–41).

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff moves to dismiss the counterclaim by alleging that the Cohens do not have

standing to assert any counterclaim. 

This order first determines the proper standard under which to examine plaintiff’s

motion. Plaintiff contends that defendants have not satisfied the requirement under

Supplemental Rule E(4)(f) for Admiralty or Maritime Claims of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Rule E(4)(f) states, in relevant part, that “[w]henever property is arrested or

attached, any person claiming an interest in it shall be entitled to a prompt hearing at which the

Case 3:07-cv-02952-WHA Document 75 Filed 08/27/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Plaintiff similarly cites to Rule C(6)(a), which requires that a “person who asserts a right of

possession or any ownership interest in the property that is the subject of the action must file a verifiied

statement of right or interest.” That rule, however, also does not limit who may assert a counterclaim based on

an allegedly wrongful arrest.

3

plaintiff shall be required to show why the arrest or attachment should not be vacated” Plaintiff

alleges that because the Cohens transferred the ownership of the vessel to F/V Point Loma

Fishing Company, they do not have “an interest” in the vessel.

Plaintiff’s contention lacks merit. Rule E(4)(f) does not set forth a standing requirement

for counterclaims. It merely delineates a “procedure for release from arrest or attachment.” A

defendant or claimant need not even attempt to state a counterclaim to seek a vacatur of the

order of arrest. Rule E(4)(f) has no relevance to the instant motion or to defendants’

counterclaim.1

Plaintiff’s motion must instead be evaluated under the familiar test for standing: (1) the

plaintiff must have directly suffered an “injury in fact,” (2) the injury must be fairly traceable to

the defendant’s conduct, and (3) a favorable court decision must be likely to redress the injury. 

Rubin v. City of Santa Monica, 308 F.3d 1008, 1019 (9th Cir. 2002). This order holds that as a

matter of pleading, the Cohens have satisfied all three requirements.

First, the Cohens allege in the counterclaim that plaintiff has interfered with their

prospective economic advantage by preventing them from earning income by disrupting the

vessel’s fishing activities. Second, this injury was fairly traceable to plaintiff’s actions. If

plaintiff had not requested an arrest of the vessel, the Cohens would have an income and could

pay off the remaining amount due under the note. Third, the Cohens’ injury could be redressed

by, for example, an order awarding them damages for wrongful or improper arrest. Considering

all facts alleged in a light most favorable to the Cohens, they have standing to assert their

counterclaim.

Case 3:07-cv-02952-WHA Document 75 Filed 08/27/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the counterclaim is DENIED. 

Finding further argument unnecessary, the hearing on this motion is hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 27, 2007. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-02952-WHA Document 75 Filed 08/27/07 Page 4 of 4