Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01902/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01902-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
M/V Spirit of Sacramento
Defendant
San Mateo County Harbor District
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN MATEO COUNTY HARBOR 

DISTRICT,

Plaintiff,

v.

M/V SPIRIT OF SACRAMENTO,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01902-JD 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

Re: Dkt. No. 53

On December 4, 2015, Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim issued her report and recommendation 

on plaintiff’s pending motion to strike (Dkt. No. 37) and motion for default judgment (Dkt. 

No. 38). Dkt. No. 53. No objections have been filed in response to the report, and the time to file 

objections has expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court has carefully reviewed the report 

and finds it to be thorough and well-reasoned. The Court consequently adopts the report and 

recommendation in full, except for the minor modifications noted below.

For the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Kim’s report, the Court grants plaintiff San 

Mateo County Harbor District’s motion to strike Brian Gerhart’s statement of interest. Dkt. 

No. 37. The statement of interest filed by Brian Gerhart on June 19, 2015 (Dkt. No. 18) is hereby 

stricken.

The Court agrees that plaintiff Harbor District’s motion for default judgment (Dkt. No. 38) 

should also be granted for the reasons stated in Magistrate Judge Kim’s report. Consequently, 

judgment will be entered in favor of plaintiff Harbor District and against the defendant M/V Spirit 

of Sacramento (“Vessel”), in rem, for plaintiff’s maritime lien for necessaries in the amount of 

$31,336.77. See Dkt. No. 53 at 9-10 (explaining determination of $31,336.77 amount). 

Case 3:15-cv-01902-JD Document 54 Filed 01/22/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Magistrate Judge Kim’s report recommends that the judgment for plaintiff should also 

include custodia legis expenses, but that the precise amount of those expenses should be left open 

until after judgment to be “substantiated after the sale” of the Vessel. Dkt. No. 53 at 12 & 13 

(recommending custodia legis expenses be awarded “pursuant to a bill of costs to be filed postjudgment”). It appears to the Court, however, that plaintiff itself has not requested that the amount

of these expenses be left open in this manner. See Dkt. No. 43 (proposed order requesting sum 

certain for custodia legis fees). It also appears that taking this approach may make it difficult, if 

not impossible, for plaintiff to recover the custodia legis expenses if the Court were to order a sale 

of the Vessel as proposed by plaintiff, as the Court intends to do. See id. (proposing that the Court 

order a sale of the Vessel in which the Harbor District “may credit bid . . . for any and all amounts 

up to the total judgment,” and providing that “the Harbor District will be responsible to pay any 

other custodia legis fees or costs applicable to the Defendant Vessel”). The Court will accordingly 

include a sum certain for the custodia legis fees in the judgment for plaintiff. The Court finds that 

the appropriate sum to include is $19,611.23, as detailed and substantiated by plaintiff’s most 

recent declaration filed on December 1, 2015. See Dkt. No. 52 ¶¶ 10, 15. This will make 

$50,948.00 the total sum of the judgment for plaintiff.

The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Kim’s recommendation that the Court issue an 

order for the final sale of the Vessel and that the Harbor District be permitted to make a credit bid 

at that sale in compliance with Admiralty Local Rule 9-2. Dkt. No. 53 at 13. The Court will issue 

that order separately, adopting the terms in plaintiff’s proposed order. Dkt. No. 43.

The Clerk is requested to close the file after the judgment for plaintiff and the order for the 

sale of the Vessel have been entered on the docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2016

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01902-JD Document 54 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 2