Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00994/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00994-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 120
Nature of Suit: Marine Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 46:31301 Federal Maritime Lien Act

---

1

17-cv-0994-GPC (BGS)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAHUENGA ASSOCIATES II, a California 

Limited Partnership,

Plaintiff,

v.

S/V MAKO, U.S.C.G. OFFICIAL NO. 1193413, 

A FARR 40 SAILING VESSEL OF 

APPROXIMATELY 40.5-FEET IN LENGTH 

AND 13-FEET IN BEAM, AND ALL OF HER 

ENGINES, TACKLE, ACCESSORIES, 

EQUIPMENT, FURNISHINGS AND 

APPURTENANCES, in rem,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17-cv-0994-GPC (BGS)

IN ADMIRALTY

(1) ORDER AUTHORIZING ARREST OF 

DEFENDANT VESSEL PURSUANT TO 

SUPPLEMENTAL ADMIRALTY RULE C

(2) ORDER APPOINTING SUBSTITUTE 

CUSTODIAN AND AUTHORIZING 

MOVEMENT OF DEFENDANT VESSEL

F.R.C.P. Supplemental Admiralty Rules C 

and E.

46 U.S.C. Sections 30101-31343

Before the Court is Plaintiff Cahuenga Associates II’s (1) Ex Parte Application for 

Issuance of Warrant for Arrest of Defendant Vessel and (2) Ex Parte Application to 

Substitute Custodian and for Authorization of Movement of Defendant Vessel by 

Cahuenga Associates II. Based upon a review of the moving papers and the applicable 

law, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s ex parte applications. 

/ / / / 

Case 3:17-cv-00994-GPC-BGS Document 5 Filed 06/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 12
2

17-cv-0994-GPC (BGS)

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

BACKGROUND 

On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Verified Complaint, in Admiralty, For Vessel 

Arrest, Interlocutory Sale and for Money Damages for Breach of Maritime Contract and 

Quantum Meruit. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff argues that the owners of the Defendant vessel 

S/V Mako No. 1193413 (“Vessel No. 1193413”) have breached a maritime contract for 

necessaries in the amount of $18,696.65. Id. ¶ 9. On June 2, 2015 Wayne Womack

executed a Moorage Agreement with Plaintiff’s marina, known as the “Kona Kai 

Marina,” for the berthing of the Defendant vessel. Id. ¶ 5; Exhibit A. Thereafter, 

Plaintiff provided wharfage services for the Defendant vessel at its marina. Id. ¶ 6. 

Womack tendered a deposit of $1,835 at the time of execution and thereafter made 

two payments, on July 21, 2015 and August 3, 2015, for $866.00 each. Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff 

has received no payments from Womack or any other individual since September 2015 

despite having sent monthly invoices. Id. Plaintiff states the account for the Mako is 

currently $18,696.65 in arrears. 

JURISDICTION

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “[a]ny civil action of 

admiralty or maritime jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1333. If a plaintiff demonstrates that it 

provided necessaries to a vessel by order of the owner of the vessel or a person 

authorized by the owner, “it may invoke the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts to 

enforce a necessaries lien in rem.” Ventura Packers, Inc. v. F/V Jeanine Kathleen, 305 

F.3d 913, 919 (9th Cir. 2002). A maritime contract is not needed to invoke the admiralty 

jurisdiction pursuant to the Maritime Lien Act. Id. at 919-922. 

I. ARREST WARRANT

A. Maritime Lien Act

The Federal Maritime Lien Act states that 

[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 (2) is not required to 

allege or prove in the action that credit was given to the vessel.

Case 3:17-cv-00994-GPC-BGS Document 5 Filed 06/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 12
3

17-cv-0994-GPC (BGS)

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

46 U.S.C. § 31342. A lien claimant must meet three requirements before a court may 

grant a maritime lien under 46 U.S.C. § 31342: namely, (1) that the individual provided 

necessaries; (2) to a vessel; (3) on the order of the owner or a person authorized by the 

owner. Ventura Packers, 305 F.3d at 923; see also Foss Launch & Tug Co. v. Char 

Ching Shipping U.S.A., Ltd., 808 F.2d 697, 699 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing 46 U.S.C. § 9711).

Section 31301(4) defines necessaries as “repairs, supplies, towage, and the use of a 

dry dock or marine railway.” 46 U.S.C. § 31301(4). This list, however, is not exhaustive 

as the term is broadly construed to refer to “anything that facilitates or enables a vessel to

perform its mission or occupation.” Ventura Packers, 305 F.3d at 923 (citing, in part,

Farwest Steel Corp. v. Barge Sea-Span 241, 769 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1985)). 

Wharfage services are “necessaries” within the meaning of maritime law. See The 

Western Wave, 77 F.2d 695, 698 (5th Cir. 1935) (wharfage fees constituted necessaries); 

Humphreys Railways, Inc. v. F/V Nils S, 603 F. Supp. 95, 98 (E.D. Va. 1984) (same); 

Crescent City Harbor Dist. v. M/V Intrepid, 2008 WL 5211023, *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 

2008) (same); see also California Yacht Marina–Chula Vista, LLC v. S/V OPILY, 2015 

WL 1197540, *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2015) (Bashant, J.) (stating in background that 

failure to pay wharfage fee resulted in maritime “necessaries” lien). 

A vessel need not be engaged in commerce to be subject to admiralty law. 

Goodman v. 1973 Foot Trojan Vessel, Arkansas Registration No. AT1439SN, 859 F.2d 

71, 73 (8th Cir. 1988). The term “vessel,” in fact, includes “every description of 

watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of 

transportation on water.” Id. (citing 3 U.S.C. § 3).

 

1 Sections 971, 972 and 973 of the Federal Maritime Lien Act were repealed and replaced 

by Sections 31341 and 31342 effective January 1, 1989. Port of Portland v. M/V 

Paralla, 892 F.2d 825, 827 n.1 (9th Cir. 1989). “Although Congress altered the text of 

the statute, it intended no substantive change.” Ventura Packers, 305 F.3d at 917 n.2. 

Case 3:17-cv-00994-GPC-BGS Document 5 Filed 06/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 12
4

17-cv-0994-GPC (BGS)

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

B. Admiralty Rule C 

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Admiralty Rule C (concerning In Rem Actions) an 

action in rem may be brought to enforce a maritime lien only when the complaint is (1) 

verified; (2) describes the property that is the subject of the action with “reasonable 

particularity”; and (3) states that the property is within the district or will be within the 

district while the action is pending. If a Court determines, after reviewing the complaint 

and supporting papers, that the conditions for an in rem action exist, “the court must issue 

an order directing the clerk to issue a warrant for the arrest of the vessel or other property 

that is the subject of the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Admiralty Rule C. According to 

the Advisory Committee’s Note for Rule C, “the rule envisions that the (arrest) order will 

issue upon a prima facie showing that the plaintiff has an action in rem against the 

defendant in the amount sued for and that the property is within the district. A simple 

order with conclusory findings is contemplated.” 

C. Analysis 

The Court finds that it is proper to institute an in rem action, in admiralty law, to 

enforce Plaintiff’s maritime lien against Vessel No. 1193413. The requirements of 46 

U.S.C. § 31342 have been met. Plaintiff’s complaint includes a copy of the contract at 

issue. Dkt. No. 1-2. The contract is entitled “Moorage Agreement” and provides for the 

permanent tenancy of Vessel No. 1193413 at the Kona Kai Marina in San Diego. Id. 

The contract, therefore, is one for necessaries as it provides for wharfage services. The 

Agreement further states that Wayne Womack is the “owner” of the vessel, which is a 40-

foot sail boat with a beam of 13.2 ft.2 The latter two § 31342 requirements, therefore, 

have also been met. 

 

2 The Agreement states that the name of the vessel is “cactus,” which differs from the 

name given by Plaintiff. The Court notes, however, that the vessel number listed in the 

Moorage Agreement is the same as the number provided by Plaintiff in the complaint. 

Case 3:17-cv-00994-GPC-BGS Document 5 Filed 06/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 12
5

17-cv-0994-GPC (BGS)

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

Plaintiff has also satisfied the requirements of Admiralty Rule C. The complaint 

states that the Defendant vessel is a 2003 Farr 40 sailboat of approximately 40.5-feet in 

length, and 13-feet in beam, with a United States Coast Guard number 1193413. Dkt. 

No. 1 at 2. The vessel is currently residing at the Kona Kai Marina, located at 1561 

Shelter Island Drive, San Diego, CA 92106. Id. Plaintiff’s counsel has, moreover, 

submitted a Declaration, Dkt. No. 2-1, declaring under penalty of perjury that the facts 

laid out in the complaint are true and correct. See Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 

460 n.10 (9th Cir. 1995) (to verify a complaint, the plaintiff must swear or affirm that the 

facts in the complaint are true “under the pains and penalties” of perjury). Accordingly, 

the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has made a prima facie case demonstrating that an in 

rem action over Vessel No. 1193413 is proper and that the action is properly within the 

subject matter jurisdiction of this Court. 

ARREST WARRANT ORDER 

The Court, having reviewed the Verified Complaint of the Plaintiff and the 

Declaration of Philip E. Weiss, an attorney acting on its behalf, and upon application of 

Plaintiff for an Order Authorizing a Warrant of Arrest for the Defendant Vessel, finds 

that the conditions for an action in rem appear to exist, and it is therefore

ORDERED that the immediate issuance of a Warrant for the arrest of the 

Defendant Vessel S/V MAKO, U.S.C.G. Official No. 1193413, a Farr 40 sailing vessel of 

approximately 40.5-feet in length and 13-feet in beam, and all of her engines, tackle, 

accessories, equipment, furnishings (the “DEFENDANT VESSEL”) and appurtenances is 

authorized, and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the District Court shall immediately prepare a 

Warrant for the Arrest of the DEFENDANT VESSEL and shall deliver it to the United 

States Marshal for the Southern District of California for service; and it is further

ORDERED that any person claiming an interest in the Defendant Vessel 

shall be entitled upon request to a prompt hearing, at which the Plaintiff shall be required 

Case 3:17-cv-00994-GPC-BGS Document 5 Filed 06/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 12
6

17-cv-0994-GPC (BGS)

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

to show why the arrest should not be vacated or other relief granted consistent with the 

Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, and it is further

ORDERED that CAHUENGA ASSOCIATES II must comply with the

notice provisions as outlined in Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Admiralty Rule C(4) and Local Civ.

R. C.1(b).

ORDERED that a copy of this Order be attached to and served with the said 

Warrant For Arrest In Action In Rem.

II. SUBSTITUTION OF CUSTODIAN

Plaintiff has also moved the Court to appoint the owner and operator of the Kona 

Kai Marina as substitute custodian for Defendant Vessel No. 1193413. Dkt. No. 3 at 1.

Local Civil Rule E.1(2) (Actions in Rem and Quasi in Rem) provides that:

On motion of any party, made after notice to the marshal and all parties who 

have appeared, a judge may order that custody of the vessel be given to the 

operator of a marina or similar facility, repair yard, or company regularly 

carrying on the business of ship’s agent, if a judge finds that such firm or 

person can and will safely keep the vessel and has in effect adequate insurance 

to cover liability for failure to do so.

The rule also contemplates the movement of the arrested vessel: 

If the vessel must be moved to the place where custody will be maintained, a 

judge may also require insurance or other security to protect those having an 

interest in the vessel, as well as those claiming against her, from loss of 

damage to the res, liability of the vessel, incurred during movement. The order 

allowing such custody must fix fees to be charged therefor and for any other 

services to be rendered the vessel and must provide for their payment to the 

marshal in advance. 

 The Court is satisfied that the Kona Kai Marina is able to safely harbor and move 

the Defendant Vessel. The manager at the Kona Kai Marina, Adam Veves, submitted a 

declaration stating that the staff at the facility have the experience needed to preserve and 

protect the vessel. Dkt. No. 3-1 at 2. For instance, Veves explains that he is currently 

responsible for the daily operations at the Kona Kai Marina, a 520 slip marina, and that 

Case 3:17-cv-00994-GPC-BGS Document 5 Filed 06/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 12
7

17-cv-0994-GPC (BGS)

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

he is trained in vessel dewatering and pollution control operations. Veves further 

declares that the Cahuenga Associates II has several insurance policies protecting it 

against custodial negligence, including (1) a $1,000,000 ocean marine insurance policy, 

(2) a $3,000,000 commercial general liability policy, and (3) a $25,000,000 umbrella 

policy. Id. 

Plaintiff further declares that it will provide ongoing custodial services at the slip 

where the Defendant Vessel is located at the marina’s rate of $3.50 per foot of vessel 

length per day ($140.00 per day). Id. That rate shall include “Wharfage services, 

maintenance of the insurance specified [ ], and general custodial services . . . .” Id. 

Plaintiff will also conduct weekly inspections at $50.00 for “watertight integrity, 

excessive bilge water and fuel lubricant leaks” and a one-time inventory of the Vessel’s 

interior, exterior, and equipment at a cost of $200.00. Id. at 2-3. 

SUBSTITUTION OF CUSTODIAN ORDER

Plaintiff, by and through its attorneys, Brodsky, Micklow, Bull & Weiss, having 

appeared and made the following recitals: 

1. PLAINTIFF filed its Verified Complaint herein praying the DEFENDANT 

VESSEL be condemned and sold to pay their demands and for other proper relief.

2. PLAINTIFF accordingly anticipates that an Order will issue following its 

Application for Order Requiring Issuance of Warrant for Vessel Arrest, requiring that the 

Clerk of this Court issue a Warrant for Arrest of the DEFENDANT VESSEL, and 

commanding that the United States Marshal for this District arrest and take into custody 

the DEFENDANT VESSEL and detain her in custody until further Order of this Court 

respecting same.

3. It is therefore contemplated that the United States Marshal will arrest the 

DEFENDANT VESSEL forthwith. Custody by the United States Marshal requires the 

services of one or more keepers, and does not include charges for wharfage and the other 

services usually associated with safekeeping vessels similar to the DEFENDANT 

VESSEL.

Case 3:17-cv-00994-GPC-BGS Document 5 Filed 06/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 12
8

17-cv-0994-GPC (BGS)

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. CAHUENGA ASSOCIATES II, the Plaintiff herein, owns and operates the 

Kona Kai Marina, located at 1561 Shelter Island Drive, San Diego, California. It has 

agreed to assume the responsibility for safekeeping of the said DEFENDANT VESSEL, 

and to act as her Substitute Custodian until further Order of this Court. It will provide, as 

necessary under the circumstances, the following services for the safekeeping and 

preservation of the DEFENDANT VESSEL, at a cost not to exceed those prevailing rates 

of the Port of San Diego, as described below with further particularity in the Declaration 

of Adam Veves: 

a. As soon as possible after assuming custody of the DEFENDANT VESSEL, 

at a cost of $200.00, photograph and/or video tape her interior and exterior, and prepare a 

written inventory of key equipment and property on the vessel which is not installed as 

part of the vessel;

b. Provide ongoing custodial services at the slip where the DEFENDANT 

VESSEL lies or another slip within the Substitute Custodian's marina, at the marina's rate 

of $3.50 per foot of vessel length per day (i.e., 40 ft. x $3.50 = $140.00 per day), which 

rate shall include wharfage services, maintenance of the insurance specified below, and 

general custodial services, including periodic inspection of mooring lines/fenders to 

assure safe and secure mooring, daily visual inspection of the exterior of the vessel for 

evidence of water intrusion, tampering or any other problems, and "walk by" inspections 

by marina personnel. 

c. Periodically and as deemed prudent under the existing circumstances, but no 

less than weekly, at the rate of $50.00 per inspection, inspect the interior of the 

DEFENDANT VESSEL for watertight integrity, excessive bilge water and fuel lubricant 

leaks. If it is determined that further action is necessary beyond those detailed herein the 

Substitute Custodian shall notify its counsel, so counsel can seek an appropriate Order 

from the Court.

d. Provide at rates not exceeding the usual and customary rates prevailing in 

the Port of San Diego additional services, including cleaning, minor maintenance, 

Case 3:17-cv-00994-GPC-BGS Document 5 Filed 06/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 12
9

17-cv-0994-GPC (BGS)

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

inspection of bottom by a diver for the purpose of cleaning and reporting findings 

regarding underwater hull, metal and zinc conditions, as such services are deemed 

reasonably prudent and necessary to preserve and protect the DEFENDANT VESSEL.

e. Engines and other machinery will be operated only as directed in a Court 

Order.

f. Provide other such services as might be required from time-to-time, by 

further Order of the Court.

5. The Substitute Custodian’s responsibility shall not extend to inherent or 

latent defects or deficiencies in the hull, machinery or equipment, nor to any fines, 

penalties or costs related to the above.

6. The Substitute Custodian will not sell the DEFENDANT VESSEL or release 

her to anyone and/or let anyone aboard her, other than in the case of emergency or as 

otherwise directed by the Court.

7. PLAINTIFF, by the Declaration of Adam Veves has averred that 

PLAINTIFF has adequate facilities and supervision at Kona Kai Marina for the proper 

safekeeping of the DEFENDANT VESSEL, and that it maintains insurance policies 

which protect it against occurrences of negligence during its custodianship. Those 

policies include: (a) a $1,000,000 ocean marine insurance policy, underwritten by Zurich 

America Insurance Company; (b) a $3,000,000 (per occurrence and aggregate total) 

commercial general liability policy, underwritten by Greenwich Insurance Company and 

Lexington Insurance Company; and (c) a $25,000,000 (per occurrence and aggregate) 

umbrella policy, underwritten by Greenwich Insurance Company and Lexington 

Insurance Company. In addition to the above policies, the United States Marshal will 

secure, as usual, insurance to protect it against damages resulting from a marine casualty. 

Further, in said Declaration the Substitute Custodian accepts, in accordance with the 

terms of this Order Appointing Substitute Custodian and Authorizing Movement of the 

Vessel, possession of the DEFENDANT VESSEL, her engines, boilers, tackle,

Case 3:17-cv-00994-GPC-BGS Document 5 Filed 06/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 12
10

17-cv-0994-GPC (BGS)

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

apparel, furnishings, appurtenances, etc., and all other necessaries thereunto appertaining 

and belonging, which is the subject of the action herein.

8. PLAINTIFF, in consideration of the U.S. Marshal’s consent to the 

Substitution of Custodian, have agreed to release the United States and the Marshal from 

any and all liability and responsibility arising out of the care and custody of the 

DEFENDANT VESSEL, her engines, boilers, tackle, apparel, furnishings, 

appurtenances, etc., and all other necessaries thereunto appertaining and belonging, from 

the time the Marshal transfers possession of the DEFENDANT VESSEL over to said 

Substitute Custodian, and said PLAINTIFF further agree to hold harmless and indemnify 

the United States and the Marshal from any and all claims whatsoever arising out of the 

Substitute Custodian’s possession and safekeeping.

CAHUENGA ASSOCIATES II moved for the appointment of a substitute

custodian. The Court may “order that custody of the vessel be given to the operator of a

marina” if the Court finds they can “safely keep the vessel and has in effect adequate

insurance.” Local Civ. Rule E.1. The Court finds that CAHUENGA ASSOCIATES II

satisfies the local rule and GRANTS the motion to appoint CAHUENGA ASSOCIATES

II as substitute custodian authorized to move the DEFENDANT VESSEL. Dkt. No. 2.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the United States Marshal for 

the Southern District be, and is hereby, authorized and directed upon seizure of the 

DEFENDANT VESSEL, her engines, boilers, tackle, apparel, furnishings, 

appurtenances, etc., and all other necessaries thereunto appertaining and belonging, 

pursuant to Warrant for Arrest to be issued by the Clerk of this Court pursuant to Order 

of the Court, to surrender the possession thereof to the Substitute Custodian named 

herein, and that upon such surrender the U.S. Marshal shall be discharged from its duties 

and responsibilities for the safekeeping of the DEFENDANT VESSEL and held harmless 

from and against any and all claims whatever arising out of said substituted possession 

and safekeeping. 

Case 3:17-cv-00994-GPC-BGS Document 5 Filed 06/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of 12
11

17-cv-0994-GPC (BGS)

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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CAHUENGA ASSOCIATES II be and is 

hereby appointed the Substitute Custodian of said DEFENDANT VESSEL, to retain the 

same in its custody at the Kona Kai Marina in her current slip or another one at the 

marina, for possession and safekeeping for the aforementioned compensation and in 

accordance with the Declaration of Adam Veves and the recitals herein contained until 

further Order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER OREDERD that CAHUENGA ASSOCIATES II shall provide

the following services for the safekeeping of the DEFENDANT VESSEL at a cost not to

exceed the prevailing rates of the port:

(1)As soon as possible after assuming custody of the DEFENDANT VESSEL,

CAHUENGA ASSOCIATES II must photograph or videotape her interior and

exterior.

(2)Provide vessel monitoring services. Periodically inspect mooring lines and

fenders to assure safe mooring. Periodically inspect the vessel for watertight

integrity, excessive bilge water, and fuel lubricant leaks.

(3)Provide wharfage services and electricity if needed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CAHUENGA ASSOCIATES II must not sell

the DEFENDANT VESSEL. CAHUENGA ASSOCIATES II must not release the vessel

or allow anyone aboard except in an emergency.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if CAHUENGA ASSOCIATES II thinks

further action is necessary for safekeeping beyond the instructions in this Order,

CAHUENGA ASSOCIATES II shall seek an appropriate order from the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that PLAINTIFF’s attorney will serve a copy of 

this Order on the DEFENDANT VESSEL’s owner or apparent owner, and on all known 

maritime lien claimants and/or others with a known or suspected interest in the 

DEFENDANT VESSEL.

/ / / /

/ / / /

Case 3:17-cv-00994-GPC-BGS Document 5 Filed 06/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of 12
12

17-cv-0994-GPC (BGS)

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

Dated: June 21, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00994-GPC-BGS Document 5 Filed 06/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of 12