Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02044/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02044-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 120
Nature of Suit: Marine Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 46:1101 Violation of Maritime Regulations

---

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 08cv2044 BTM (WMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINEYARD BANK,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv2044 BTM (WMC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

INTERLOCUTORY SALE OF

VESSEL

vs.

M/Y ELIZABETH I, U.S.C.G. Official No.

1130283, AND ALL OF HER ENGINES,

TACKLE, ACCESSORIES,

EQUIPMENT, FURNISHINGS AND

APPURTENANCES, in rem, AND

ELIZABETH YACHTS, LLC, s Nevada

limited liability corporation, in personam,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Vineyard Bank moves here for interlocutory sale of the Defendant Vessel M/Y

Elizabeth I. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant Elizabeth Yachts, LLC (“Elizabeth Yachts”), purchased the Defendant

Vessel M/Y Elizabeth I, U.S.C.G. Official No. 1130283 (“Defendant Vessel”) on or about

March 5, 2005. To complete this purchase, Elizabeth Yachts delivered a promissory note

to Plaintiff in the amount of $2,800,000, which was secured by a preferred ship mortgage on

the Defendant Vessel. (George Decl., Ex. A–B.) The promissory note also provided that,

///

Case 3:08-cv-02044-BTM-WMC Document 23 Filed 03/23/09 Page 1 of 5
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 cites to Supplemental Admiralty Rule E(9)(b) throughout its brief. However,

because Plaintiff uses language from Rule E(9)(a)(i), the Court assumes Plaintiff meant to

bring its motion under this provision.

2 08cv2044 BTM (WMC)

upon default, all remaining sums plus accrued interest would become immediately due and

payable. (George Decl., Ex. A.) If forced to sue to enforce the terms of the promissory note,

the note required that Elizabeth Yachts pay Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

(Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that Elizabeth Yachts defaulted on the note by failing to pay monthly

installments of principal and interest due from June through December of 2008. On

November 4, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Complaint with the Court. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant

breached the promissory note and asked that the Defendant Vessel be sold to satisfy

Defendant’s debt. On November 6, 2008, the Court issued a warrant for the arrest of the

Defendant Vessel, which was returned executed on November 10, 2008. 

Defendant never answered Plaintiff’s Complaint. On December 19, 2008, Plaintiff filed

the instant Motion for Interlocutory Sale of Defendant Vessel pursuant to Supplemental

Admiralty Rule (E)(9)(a)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule (E)(9)(a)(i)”).1

Defendant has not opposed Plaintiff’s Motion. 

On February 3, 2009, the Clerk filed an Entry of Default as to Defendants.

II. DISCUSSION

Rule E(9)(a)(i) provides that “on application of a party . . . the court may order all or

part of the property sold — with the sale proceeds, or as much of them as will satisfy the

judgment, paid into court to await further orders of the court — if: (A) the attached or arrested

property is perishable, or liable to deterioration, decay, or injury by being detained in custody

pending the action; (B) the expense of keeping the property is excessive or disproportionate;

or (C) there is an unreasonable delay in securing the release of the property.” Plaintiff

argues that the Court should order the Defendant Vessel sold based on all three provisions

of Rule E(9)(a)(i). The Court agrees that interlocutory sale of the Defendant Vessel is

justified under Rule E(9)(a)(i).

Case 3:08-cv-02044-BTM-WMC Document 23 Filed 03/23/09 Page 2 of 5
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

3 08cv2044 BTM (WMC)

A. Bases for Interlocutory Sale

First, Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Vessel is “liable to deterioration, decay or

injury,” warranting sale. In support of this claim, Defendant submitted a declaration from

Neal R. Esterly, a professional yacht broker with Fraser Yachts Worldwide. (Esterly Decl.

¶ 2.) Esterly claims that vessels maintained at marina will deteriorate in condition,

particularly if they are idle in salt water, as is the Defendant Vessel. (Esterly Decl. ¶ 3.)

Captain Larry Hartt, however, a professional mariner, continues to maintain the Defendant

Vessel’s appearance and mechanical systems. (George Decl. ¶ 5.) Other than a

generalized assertion that idle vessels will deteriorate, Plaintiff offers no other evidence that

the Defendant Vessel is liable to decay. Thus, the Court cannot justify interlocutory sale of

the Defendant Vessel under Rule E(9)(a)(i)(A). Nevertheless, because the cost of

maintaining the Defendant Vessel is excessive and disproportionate and there has been

unreasonable delay by Defendant in securing its release, interlocutory sale is appropriate

here.

As Plaintiff claims, the expense of maintaining the Defendant Vessel is excessive and

disproportionate. Captain Hartt’s services presently inhibit deterioration and decay of the

Defendant Vessel, but they also contribute to the expense of keeping the property, at a cost

of $1,500 per month. In addition to the fees owed to Captain Hartt, the Substitute Custodian

earns $2,960.00 per month for his services to Defendant Vessel. These two expenses alone

amount to almost $4,500 per month and over $53,000 per year, absent any additional

custodial, insurance, and other expenses. Plaintiff must also pay insurance fees for the

Defendant Vessel while it is under arrest. (George Decl. ¶ 5.) At the time Plaintiff filed the

instant Motion on December 19, 2008, custodial fees had already amounted to $7,473.82.

(Pl.’s Mot. for Order of Sale 8.) Maintenance expenses of several thousand dollars per

month, particularly where Defendant has made no attempt to answer Plaintiff’s Complaint or

secure the Vessel’s release, are excessive and disproportionate. See Merchants Nat. Bank

of Mobile v. Dredge General G.L. Gillespie, 663 F.2d 1338, 1341–1342 (5th Cir. 1981)

(interlocutory sale warranted where vessel accrued $17,000 per month in maintenance and

Case 3:08-cv-02044-BTM-WMC Document 23 Filed 03/23/09 Page 3 of 5
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 08cv2044 BTM (WMC)

insurance fees and claimants delayed eight months after seizure in attempting to secure

release); see also Ferrous Financial Services Co. v. O/S Arctic Producer, 567 F. Supp. 400,

401 (W.D. Wash. 1983) (finding expense excessive and delay unreasonable where cost of

maintaining the vessel was $166,000 per year and defendant made no attempt to secure its

release for four months). 

A motion for interlocutory sale generally should not be granted unless the court has

permitted defendants sufficient time to provide a bond to secure the vessel’s release. Bank

of Rio Vista v. Vessel Captain Pete, 2004 WL 2330704, at * 2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2004). “As

a general rule, defendants are given at least four months to bond a vessel absent some other

considerations.” (Id.) (quoting United States v. F/V Fortune, 1987 WL 27274, at *1 (D.

Alaska April 14, 1987). Here, Defendant has not made any attempts to secure release of the

Vessel since its arrest on November 11, 2008. More than four months have passed since

the Defendant Vessel’s arrest. Defendant has not answered Plaintiff’s Complaint or

responded to the instant Motion. Thus, the Court has no evidence to suggest that Defendant

has made any attempts at all to secure the release of the Defendant Vessel. The Court

therefore finds that there has been unreasonable delay in securing the release of the

Defendant Vessel.

Taking into account the excessive cost of maintaining the Defendant Vessel together

with Defendant’s unreasonable delay in securing its release, the Court finds interlocutory sale

warranted under Rule E(9)(a)(i). 

B. Priority of Plaintiff’s Preferred Ship Mortgage

The record indicates that Plaintiff currently holds a preferred ship mortgage on the

Defendant Vessel. (See George Decl., Ex. A–B.) Plaintiff effected valid service of its

Complaint and notice of Defendant Vessel’s arrest on Defendant. Plaintiff additionally

affected proper notice by publication of its action and the Vessel’s arrest in accordance with

Supplemental Admiralty Rule C(4). When a vessel is sold by order of a district court in a civil

action in rem brought to enforce a preferred mortgage lien, the preferred mortgage lien has

Case 3:08-cv-02044-BTM-WMC Document 23 Filed 03/23/09 Page 4 of 5
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

5 08cv2044 BTM (WMC)

priority over all other claims against the vessel, except for expenses and fees allowed by the

court, costs imposed by the court, and preferred maritime liens. 46 U.S.C. § 31326(b)(1).

A preferred maritime lien is defined as a “maritime lien on a vessel (A) arising before a

preferred mortgage was filed . . . ; (B) for damage arising out of a maritime tort; (C) for wages

of a stevedore . . . ; (D) for wages of the crew of the vessel; (E) for general average; or (F)

for salvage, including contract salvage. 46 U.S.C. § 31301(5). Plaintiff represents to the

Court that it is unaware of any preferred maritime liens existing against the Defendant

Vessel. Defendant has not challenged the validity of Plaintiff’s preferred ship mortgage and

no other claimant has appeared in this action within the time specified by Supplemental

Admiralty Rule C(6). Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s preferred ship mortgage has

priority over all other claims against the Defendant Vessel, except for the expenses and fees

allowed by the Court and costs imposed by the Court in this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff

may bid up to the total amount of its secured indebtedness pursuant to CivLR E.1(e)(2).

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained above, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for

Interlocutory Vessel Sale. Terms of the sale shall be determined upon further application to

the Court by Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 23, 2009

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02044-BTM-WMC Document 23 Filed 03/23/09 Page 5 of 5