United States Court of Appeals

for 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 Higginbotham and Elrod, Circuit

Judges.

Patrick 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: 04/12/2022
No. 21-60501

2

To its answer, able 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 decommissioned oil platforms in the Gulf 

of Mexico, subcontracting with owners of various vessels to complete 

decommissioning 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 them onto barges. 

Tugboats then towed the loaded barges from the Nor Goliath’s location in 

the Gulf to an inland scrapyard for further dismantling, returning to the Nor 

Goliath with empty barges. These tugboats were owned by various towing 

companies.4

Upon Epic’s bankruptcy, the suppliers looked elsewhere to recoup 

their costs. The 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. The 

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.; Offshore Towing Inc.; McAllister Towing of 

New York, L.L.C.; and Curtin Maritime Corp. 

Case: 21-60501 Document: 00516277666 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2022
No. 21-60501

3

judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to the Nor Goliath, 

holding that the services rendered by the tugboats 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 forward 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 action 

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: 04/12/2022
No. 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 Necessaries “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 function” and requirements of a ship 

to determine what is a necessary for that ship.14

IV.

First, the Towing Companies argue that the Nor Goliath’s particular 

function was the entirety of the decommissioning process, therefore every 

good or service used to decommission 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 components 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 requirements 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: 04/12/2022
No. 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. In 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 liens arise when 

“the good or service was provided for use by the vessel itself.”18

It is plain that the barges were not equipment for the Nor Goliath, did 

not help the Nor Goliath’s crane raise and lower the platform components, 

and so the Nor Goliath did not “use” the barges. It follows that the Towing 

Companies did not provide a service necessary to the Nor Goliath’s 

particular function.

Third, the 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 

benefitted from the towing of the barges. The argument that maritime liens 

arise from indirect benefit misapprehends the concept of liens for 

necessaries. Mutually beneficial conduct is expected when each vessel was 

hired by the same general contractor. Indeed, 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 832–33.

18 Id. at 833.

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

6

conduct alone cannot give rise to a maritime lien under CIMLA, otherwise 

multi-ship operations would give rise to an untenable situation where all the 

ships in a fleet would have liens on the other. In short, maritime liens for 

necessaries run against the vessel that received the necessary and no 

further.19

V.

Note that the Towing Companies also claim that they are entitled to 

maritime liens as they protected the Nor Goliath from the hazards of the sea, 

alleging that the Nor Goliath would be in danger if it was forced to hold an oil 

platform component suspended by its 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 nonmovants at the 

summary judgment stage, the Towing Companies did not meet their burden 

to demonstrate that the Nor Goliath was in danger beyond their conclusory 

allegations and unsubstantiated assertions.20

VI.

Ultimately these arguments 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 them, to share pro rata with other 

creditors, a loss of primacy diluting 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: 04/12/2022
No. 21-60501

7

providing a separate statutory pathway for enforcement within CIMLA.21

Attentive to the economic realities to which CIMLA’s plain language 

responds, we apply its language stricti juris.

22

The Towing Companies fail to demonstrate a legal basis for their 

claimed maritime liens 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