# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 21

- 60501

Central Boat Rentals, Incorporated; Global Towing Service, L.L.C.; Offshore Towing, Incorporated; McAllister Towing of New York, L.L.C.; Curtin Maritime Corporation,

Intervenors

— Appellants ,

versus
M/V Nor Goliath, in rem ; Goliath Offshore Holdings, Private Limited, in personam , Defendants

— Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC Nos. 1:19

- CV

- 391 , 1:19

- CV

- 935

Before Owen , Chief Judge , and Higginbo tham and Elrod, Circuit Judges

. P atrick E. Higginbotham, Circuit Judge : Again, the familiar question of whether provisions were a “necessary” under the Commercial Instruments and Maritime Liens Act (“CIMLA”). 1

1 46 U.S.C. § 31301 et seq. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 12, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-60501 Document: 00516277666 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2022No. 21

- 60501

2 To its answer, a ble counsel bring creative arguments urging that we expand CIMLA ’s reach . We decline the invitation and affirm the judgment of the district court. 2

I. This dispute arose from the bankruptcy of Epic Companies, L.L.C. 3 Epic was a general contractor that decommission ed oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico , subcontract ing with owners of various vessels to complete decommissionin g projects, including heavy lift vessels, material barges, and tugboats. The M/V Nor Goliath was a heavy lift vessel hired by Epic to lift oil platform components out of the water and place th em onto barges. Tugboats then towed the loaded barges from the N or Goliath’s location in the Gulf to an inland scrapyard for further dismantling , return ing to the Nor Goliath with empty barges. The se tugboats were owned by various towing companies. 4 Upon Epic’s bankruptcy, the suppliers looked elsewhere to recoup the ir costs. T he Towing Companies joined a suit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, seeking to assert and enforce maritime liens under CIMLA against the Nor Goliath , maintaining that the tugboats provided it necessary services by towing the barges

. T he Nor Goliath and the Towing Companies each filed motions for summary

2 We have jurisdiction to review this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3) as the district court’s grant of summary judgment determined the rights and liabilities of parties in an admiralty case.

3 See In re Epic Companies, LLC , No. 19

- 34752 (Bankr. S. D. Tex., filed August 26, 2019)

.

4 The Towing Companies are the named Intervenors

- Appellants: Central Boat Rentals, Inc.; Global Towing Service, L.L.C.; O ffshore Towing Inc.; McAllister Towing of New York, L.L.C.; and Curtin Maritime Corp. Case: 21-60501 Document: 00516277666 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2022No. 21

- 60501

3 judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to the Nor Goliath, holding that the services rendered by the tugbo ats did not create a lien on the Nor Goliath. 5 The Towing Companies timely appealed.

II.

We review de novo a district court ’ s grant of summary judgment. 6 We affirm a summary judgment ruling “ when the nonmoving party fails to meet its burden to come forw ard with facts and law demonstrating a basis for recovery that would support a jury verdict

. ” 7 “Whether a maritime lien exists is a question of law, reviewed de novo .” 8

III. Under CIMLA, 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 (3) is not required to allege or prove in the actio n that credit was given to the vessel. 9

“ ‘ [N] ecessaries ’ includes repairs, supplies, towage, and the use of a dry dock or marine railway .” 10

5 See Arc Controls, Inc. v. M/V Nor Goliath , No. 1:19CV391

- LG

- RPM, 2021 WL 1971485, (S.D. Miss. May 17, 2021).

6 World Fuel Servs. Singapore Pte, Ltd. v. Bulk Juliana M/ V , 822 F.3d 766, 770 (5th Cir. 2016)

.

7 Little v. Liquid Air Corp. , 37 F.3d 1069, 1071 (5th Cir. 1994).

8 Comar Marine, Corp. v. Raider Marine Logistics, LLC , 792 F.3d 564, 575 (5th Cir. 2015) (italicization added)

.

9 46 U.S.C. § 31342(a).

10 46 U.S.C. § 31301(4). Case: 21-60501 Document: 00516277666 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/12/2022No. 21

- 60501

4 “We apply the provisions of CIMLA stricti juris to ensure that maritime liens are not lightly extended by construction, analogy, or inference.” 11 N ecessaries “includes most goods or services that are useful to the vessel, keep her out of danger, and enable her to perform her particular function. These are items useful to vessel operations and necessary to keep the ship going.” 12 “Necessaries are the things that a prudent owner would provide to enable a ship to perform well the functions for which she has been engaged.” 13 We look to the “particular funct ion” and requirements of a ship to determine what is a necessary for that ship. 14

IV. First, t he Towing Companies argue that the Nor Goliath’s particular function was the entirety of the decommissioning process, therefore every good or service used to de commission an oil platform was a necessary to the Nor Goliath. We disagree. The decommissioning project was Epic’s goal as the general contractor . Indeed, Epic hired a fleet of vessels for the project

. As the Nor Goliath’s role was to lift platform compone nts and place them on the barges , 15 its necessaries are goods or services it used for this particular function

.

11 Valero Mktg. & Supply Co. v. M/V Almi Sun, IMO No. 9579535 , 893 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotations omitted).

12 Martin Energy Servs., L.L.C. v. Bourbon Petrel M/V , 962 F.3d 827, 831 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotations omitted).

13 Equilease Corp. v. M/V Sampson , 793 F.2d 598, 603 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc).

14 Martin , 962 F.3d at 832

– 33. See also Equilease , 793 F.2d at 603 (“What is a

‘ necessary ’ is to be determined relative to the requireme nts of the ship.”).

15 See Arc Controls, Inc. v. M/V NOR GOLIATH , No. 1:19CV391

- LG

- RPM, 2021 WL 2931426, at *2 (S.D. Miss. July 12, 2021). Case: 21-60501 Document: 00516277666 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/12/2022No. 21

- 60501

5 Second, the Towing Companies argue their towing services provided the barges to the Nor Goliath, and the barges are equipment necessary for the Nor Goliath ’s particular function

. Not so. I n Trico Marine Operators , Inc. v. Falcon Drilling Co. , we held that drilling equipment was a necessary for an offshore drilling vessel , for the equipment was necessary for the vessel’s particular function

— drilling. 16 Then , in Martin Energy Servs., L.L.C. v. Bourbon Petrel M/V

, we held that gasoline is not a necessary to a vessel tasked with carrying the gasoline as cargo to another vessel for its consumption, only the consuming vessel received a necessary. 17 This is because l iens arise when “the good or service was provided for use by the vessel itself.” 18 It is plain that t he barges were not equipment for the Nor Goliath , did not help the Nor Goliath ’s crane raise and lower the platform components , and so t he Nor Goliath did not “use” the barges

. It follows that the Towing Companies d id not provide a service necessary to the Nor Goliath ’s particular function

. Third, t he Towing Companies alternatively contend that they provided a necessary as the decommissioning project would have ground to a halt without the tugboats moving the barges ; thus the Nor Goliath indirectly be nefitted from the towing of the barges. The argument that maritime liens arise from indirect benefit misapprehends the concept of liens for necessaries. M utually beneficial conduct is expected when each vessel was hired by the same general contractor . Inde ed, every ship in Epic’s fleet indirectly benefitted from the barges being towed just as every ship indirectly benefitted from the Nor Goliath’s lifting and loading. But mutually beneficial

16 116 F.3d 159, 162 (5th Cir. 1997).

17 Martin , 962 F.3d at 832

– 3 3

.

18 Id. at 83 3

. Case: 21-60501 Document: 00516277666 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/12/2022No. 21

- 60501

6 conduct alone can not give rise to a maritime lien under CIMLA, oth erwise multi

- ship operations would give rise to a n untenable situation where all the ships in a fleet would have liens on the other. In short, m aritime liens for necessaries run against the vessel that received the necessary and no further. 19

V.

Note that t he Towing Companies also claim that they are entitled to maritime lien s as they protected the Nor Goliath from the hazards of the sea, alleg ing that the Nor Goliath would be in danger if it was forced to hold an oil platform component suspended by it s crane in choppy waters

. Whatever its merits , the Towing Companies did not present any evidence of the danger these conditions posed to the Nor Goliath , which previously suspended and transported large loads without the aid of barges

. As the nonmovant s at the summary judgment stage , the Towing Companies did not me e t their burden to demonstrate that the Nor Goliath was in danger beyond their conclusory allegations and unsubstantiated assertions. 20

V I

. Ultimately the se argument s for extending the protection of liens for necessaries provided by CIMLA fail to accept that the primacy of the lien is essential to its role of securing necessaries for vessels. They require the suppliers of necessaries , as we have defined the m, to share pro rata with other creditors , a loss of primacy dilut ing the incentive to suppliers to the detriment of CIMLA’s core mission

. These economic realities were not lost on Congress as evidenced by its singular treatment of maritime liens,

19 Id

.

20 Little , 37 F.3d at 1075. Case: 21-60501 Document: 00516277666 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/12/2022No. 21

- 60501

7 providing a separate statutory pathway for enforc ement within CIMLA. 21 Attentive to the economic realities to which CIMLA’s plain language responds , we apply its language stric t i juris

. 22

The Towing Companies fail to demonstrate a legal basis for their claimed maritime lie n s against the Nor Goliath

. The district court’s grant of summary judgment is AFFIRMED

.

21 46 U.S.C. § 31342.

22 Valero , 893 F.3d at 292

. Case: 21-60501 Document: 00516277666 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/12/2022