Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02038/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02038-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 120
Nature of Suit: Marine Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

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

SMS YACHT MAINTENANCE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-2038-IEG (NLS)

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

VACATE 

[Doc. No. 17]

vs.

ONE NAUTIQUE 210 PLEASURE

VESSEL, in rem; and SEAN OVERSMITH,

in personam,

Defendants.

Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to vacate the Court’s August 22, 2012 order

issuing a warrant of arrest in rem. [Doc. No. 17.] For the reasons below, Defendants’ motion is

DENIED.

BACKGROUND

In January 2012, Plaintiff and Defendant in personam Sean Oversmith entered into an

agreement for the repair of Defendant in rem One Nautique 210 Super Pleasure Vessel, CA. Reg.

No. CF 6000 PZ, Hull No. CTC37477C303 (the “Vessel”). [See Doc. Nos. 1 at 2 (complaint); 17-

2 at 2-3 (Oversmith Declaration in Support of Motion to Vacate).] A dispute over payment arose,

and, on August 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking to foreclose an alleged maritime lien

for the provision of necessaries to the Vessel. [See Doc. Nos. 1 at 2-3;17-2 at 3-6.] On August 21,

2012, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for a warrant to arrest the Vessel, which the Court granted

on August 22, 2012. [See Doc. Nos. 3, 6.] The United States Marshal Service effected arrest on

August 24, 2012. [Doc. No. 8.] On October 10, 2012, Defendants filed the present motion to

vacate the issued arrest warrant. [Doc. No. 17.] Plaintiff filed an opposition, [Doc. No. 21], and

- 1 - 12cv2038

Case 3:12-cv-02038-JAH-NLS Document 30 Filed 12/28/12 Page 1 of 3
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

Defendant filed a reply, [Doc. No. 25]. 

DISCUSSION

Motions to vacate pursuant to Rule E(4)(f) afford an opportunity to challenge a vessel’s

arrest and burden Plaintiff “to show why the arrest [] should not be vacated.” Fed. R. Civ. P.,

Supp. R. E(4)(f). The purpose of such motions “is not ‘to resolve definitively the dispute between

the parties, but to make a preliminary determination whether there were reasonable grounds for

issuing the arrest warrant.’” Sea Prestigio, LLC v. M/Y Triton, 2010 WL 5376255, at *1 (S.D. Cal.

Dec. 22, 2010) (quoting Lion de Mer v. M/V Loretta, 1998 WL 307077 (D. Md. Apr. 3, 1998)). 

Thus, Plaintiff “isn’t required to prove its case just to defeat the motion to vacate.” Equatorial

Marine Fuel Management Services Pte Ltd. v. MISC Berhad, 591 F.3d 1208, 1211 (9th Cir. 2010). 

 Rather, to defeat such a motion, “plaintiff merely needs to show probable cause for the issuance of

the warrant,” which “translates roughly to requiring plaintiff to show entitlement to a maritime

lien.” Sea Prestigio, 2010 WL 5376255, at *1. Plaintiff may show entitlement to a maritime lien

by “demonstrat[ing] that he (1) provided necessaries (2) to a vessel (3) on the order of the owner.” 

Venture Packers, Inc. v. F/V JEANINE KATHLEEN, 305 F.3d 913, 917 (9th Cir. 2002); see also

Trans-Tec Asia v.M/V HARMONY CONTAINER, 518 F.3d 1120, 1127 (9th Cir. 2008) (“a person

providing necessaries to a vessel on the order of the owner . . . has a maritime lien on the vessel.”). 

Here, Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff provided necessaries to the Vessel on order

of the Vessel’s owner. [See, e.g., Doc. Nos. 17-1 at 2 (Defendant’s Memorandum) (“Oversmith

authorized the repairs . . .”); 17-2 at 2-3 (Oversmith Declaration) (same).] Instead, Defendants

asserts an array of factual arguments as to the extent of necessaries agreed to, the terms of the

purported contract, and whether Plaintiff overcharged for the necessaries in fact provided. [See,

e.g., Doc. No. 17-1 at 9-12 (contesting, inter alia, the necessity of storage charges and market

value of the repairs provided).] While such arguments may be probative of the value of the

repairs provided or even the scope and amount of the purported lien itself, they do not undermine

the lien’s existence or Plaintiff’s entitlement thereto. See Sea Prestigio, 2010 WL 5376255, at *1;

see also Puerto Rico Ports Authority v. BARGE KATY-B, 427 F.3d 93, 103 (1st Cir. 2005) (“A

person who supplies ‘necessaries’ to a vessel automatically obtains a maritime lien against the

vessel for the value of the goods or services supplied.”). On the present motion, Plaintiff need

- 2 - 12cv2038

Case 3:12-cv-02038-JAH-NLS Document 30 Filed 12/28/12 Page 2 of 3
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

only show entitlement to a maritime lien on the Vessel and need not resolve disputed facts as to its

scope. Del Mar Seafoods Inc. v. Cohen, 2007 WL 2385114, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2007)

(“The purpose of [] Rule E(4)(f) . . . is not to resolve [] factual disputes, but rather to assess

whether plaintiff’s showing [of entitlement to a maritime lien] rises to the level of probable

cause.”). Notwithstanding the ancillary factual disputes raised by Defendants, it remains

undisputed that Plaintiff indeed supplied necessaries to the Vessel on order of Defendant

Oversmith, the Vessel’s owner. See supra. These undisputed facts suffice to support probable

cause for entitled to the alleged maritime lien and thus for the arrest warrant’s issuance. See

Trans-Tec Asia, 518 F.3d at 1127. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to vacate is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 27, 2012 ______________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12cv2038

Case 3:12-cv-02038-JAH-NLS Document 30 Filed 12/28/12 Page 3 of 3