Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01616/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01616-1/pdf.json

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

---

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 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

ALLIANT CREDIT UNION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

THE VESSEL “EAGLE REST,” her rigging, her 

engines, boilers, tackle, etc., and all other 

necessaries thereunto appertaining and belonging 

in Rem; STEVEN E. THOMAS aka STEVEN 

THOMAS, in Personam, 

 Defendants. 

Case No: 09-1616 SBA 

 

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING

On April 13, 2009, Plaintiff, Alliance Credit Union, filed an in rem Complaint for 

Foreclosure of Preferred Ship Mortgage against The Vessel “Eagle Rest” (“Vessel”) and its 

owner, Steven Thomas (“Thomas”). The Complaint alleges that on July 25, 2006, Thomas 

borrowed $68,000 from Plaintiff and pledged his Vessel as security for the debt. (Compl. ¶¶ 5-

6.) The security agreement was memorialized in a Preferred Ship Mortgage of Vessel. (Id.

¶ 6.) 

The Complaint alleges that since September 1, 2008, Thomas has ceased payment on 

the debt. (Id. ¶ 9.) As a result, Plaintiff filed the instant action to seize the vessel and to 

recover from Thomas “the amount of any deficiency that may be due the Plaintiff after 

applying the proceeds of sale of the mortgaged vessel to the amount of the decree therein.” (Id.

at 5.) Neither Defendant answered the Complaint. At Plaintiff’s request, the Clerk entered 

default against Thomas only on September 15, 2009. 

On January 21, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment against Thomas for 

the unpaid balance of $63,020.46, plus 7% per annum interest since September 29, 2008, and 

Case 4:09-cv-01616-SBA Document 24 Filed 02/09/10 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

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 

attorneys’ fees in the amount of $4,148.85. Although Plaintiff originally invoked this Court’s 

jurisdiction and filed its Complaint specifically to seize the Vessel, Plaintiff alleges that it is 

“too costly” to proceed against the Vessel because it is now located in Panama. (Appl. for 

Default Judgment by Court ¶ 4.) As such, Plaintiff is foregoing seizure of the Vessel, and 

instead, seeks a default judgment directly against Thomas for the entire amount of the 

outstanding debt. 

The Court has reviewed the Application for Default Judgment and the Declaration in 

Support of Default Judgment and finds them deficient. As an initial matter, Plaintiff provides 

no evidentiary support for its claim that the Vessel is in Panama or that it is “too costly” to 

recover the Vessel from that location. Moreover, Plaintiff provides no analysis or legal support 

demonstrating that this Court has jurisdiction or the legal authority to hold Thomas liable for 

the entire amount of the debt in lieu of foreclosing on the Vessel—particularly given that there 

are no direct claims in the Complaint against Thomas for failure to repay the debt. Rather, the 

Complaint seeks recovery against Thomas only in the event that there is deficiency “after apply 

the proceeds of sale of the mortgaged vessel . . . .” (Compl. at 5.) 

In addition, Plaintiff’s evidentiary support for the amount claimed is lacking. Attached 

to the supporting declaration of Cathryn Wolfkill, an employee of Plaintiff, is what is purported 

to be “Transaction Summary” that allegedly establishes both the remaining amount of the debt 

as well as the amount of attorney’s fees being sought. (Wolfkill Decl. ¶¶ 10-11, Ex. 5.) 

However, the summary is indecipherable. Aside from failing to lay the proper foundation for 

this document, Plaintiff provides no explanation as to the significance of the data specified in 

the summary—or how it is proof of the amount owed on the debt and the attorney’s fees 

incurred in connection with this matter. Rather, the summary consists almost entirely of 

numbers and incomplete dates, with no corresponding explanation of what these numbers 

supposedly represent. 

In sum, the Court finds that the application for default judgment and supporting 

declaration are insufficient to justify the issuance of a default judgment. Accordingly, 

Case 4:09-cv-01616-SBA Document 24 Filed 02/09/10 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT by no later than February 19, 2010, Plaintiff shall 

submit a supplemental memorandum and declaration sufficient to establish the following: 

1. The basis of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction to enter a default judgment 

against Thomas only. 

2. The factual and legal basis of the Court’s authority to enter a default judgment 

against Thomas in the amount requested. 

3. The specific provisions of any of the various debt instruments signed by Thomas 

that support Plaintiff’s application for default judgment. 

4. Competent, admissible evidence establishing that the amount sought to be 

recovered through a default judgment accurately reflects the amount of the outstanding debt 

owed by Thomas as well as the amount of attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting this action. 

In the event Plaintiff fails to submit the above information by the specified deadline, the 

Court will dismiss the action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 5, 2010 _______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-01616-SBA Document 24 Filed 02/09/10 Page 3 of 3