16- 4067

- cv

O’Rourke MarineServ ic es L .P. v . M/V COSCO HA IF A , et al

. UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SECOND CI RCUI T SUMMAR

Y ORDER RULIN GS B Y SUM M ARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENT IAL EFFECT. CITAT ION TO A SUM M ARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER J A N U A R Y 1, 20 07 , IS PERM ITT ED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROC EDURE 32 .1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 3 2 .1. 1. WHE N C IT IN G A SUM M ARY ORDER IN A DOCUM ENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY M UST CITE EIT HER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELE CTRONIC DATABASE ( W ITH THE NOTATION “SUM M ARY ORDER”) . A PARTY CITI NG A SUM M ARY ORDER M US T SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY P ARTY NOT REPRESENTE D B Y COU NSEL.

1 At a st ated Term of the Unit ed S tates C o u rt o f Appea ls for the Second C ircuit, held at the 2 Thurg ood Marsha ll United Sta t es C o u rt h ouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York on the 3 10 day

of Jul y , two thousand eighteen. t h 4 5 Present: BA RRI NGTOND. PARKER, 6 RI CHARD C. W ESL EY, 7 DEB RA ANN L IVI NGSTON, 8 Circuit Judges. 9

_____________________________________________________ 10 11 O’Rourke Marine Ser vices L .P., L .L .P., 12 13 Plaintif f-Cross Defendant-Counter Defe ndant-Appellant , 14 15 16 v. 16-4067-c v 17 18 19 M/V COSC O HAIFA, IMO No. 9484338, her eng ines, appa

rel, fur niture, equipment, 20 appurte nance s, tackle, e tc., in rem , M/V COSC O VENI CE, I MO No. 9484405, her eng ines, 21 appar el, furniture , equipment, appur tenanc es, tac kle, etc., in rem , 22 23 Defendants in rem -Counter-Claimants-Counter-Defendants24 Appellee s, 25 26 I NG B ank N.V., 27 28 Third Part y De fendant-Counter-Claimant-Cross-Clai mant29 Appellee , 30 31 O.W. Bunker

North Amer ica, Inc., 32 33 Third Part y Plaintiff

, 341 O.W. Bunker USA Inc., 2 3 Third Part y De fendant

. 1 4

_____________________________________________________ 5 6 Appea

ringfor O’ Rourke Mar ine Service s L .P., L .L .P.: J . Stephen Simms , Casey L . Br y ant, 7 Simm s Showers L L P, Baltimore, 8 MD. 9 10 Appea

ringfor M/V COSCO HAIFA, M/V COSCO VENI CE: J ames L . Ross, Gina M. 11 Vene zia, Michael J. Dehart, 12 Fr eehill Hog an & Mahar 13 L L P, New Yor k, N.Y. 14 15 Appea

ringfor I NG B ank N.V.: Br uce G . Paulsen, Br ian P. Maloney , 16 Sewar d & Kissel L L P, New Yor k, 17 N.Y. 18 19 Appea

ringfor O.W. B unker U SA Inc. L iquidated Trust and D r. Gideon B öhm, as insolvency 20 administrator and f

oreign repr esentative of O.W. Bunke r Ge rmany GmbH, amici curiae , in 21 support of appe llees: 22 23 Davis L ee Wright, Robert E. 24 O’Connor, Ka spar Kie lland, 25 Montgome ry McCrac ken Walker & 26 Rhoads L L P, New Yor k, N.Y. 27 28 Andre w B . Kratenstein, Dar ren 29 Azman, McDer mott W ill & Emery 30 L L P, New Yor k, N.Y. 31 32 J ustin M. Heilig, Hill Rivkins L L P, 33 New Y ork, N.Y. 34 35 36 37 38 UP ON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, A ND 39 DECREED that the judg ment of the District Court is AF F IRMED

. 40 Appellant O’ Rourke Mar ine Service s L .P., L .L .P. (“O’Rourke ”) a ppeals fr om a judg ment 41 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w York ( For rest, J. ). The The Clerk of

Court is respec tfully

direc ted to amend the c aption as above

. 1

21 District Court entere d judgme nt in favor of I NG B ank N.V. ( “I

NG”) and the Ve ssels M/V 2 COSCO HAI FA a

nd M/V COSC O VENI CE (tog ether , the “Ve ssels”) pur suant to their 3 stipulation. W e assume the parties’ familiarity with the underly

ing f acts, proc edura l history , and 4 issues for re view. 5 In October

and Nove mber 2014, O’ Rourke phy sically supplied bunkers to the Ve ssels in 6 Houston, Texas. O’Rourke wa s then neve r paid for the bunker s. In April 2015, O’Rourke 7 brought this action ag ainst the Vesse ls, assertingclaims for ma ritime liens in an attempt to 8 rec over f

or the unpa id bunkers. F ollowing discove ry , O’Rourke moved for summar y judgme nt 9 on its maritime lien claims and, for the first time, argued it was e ntitled to sum mary judgme nt on 10 the basis of bre ach of contra ct and unjust enric hment. The District Court denie d O’Rourke ’s 11 motion, concluding that O’Rourke c ould not assert a ma ritime lien ag ainst the Vesse ls, and 12 declined to a ddress O’ Rourke’s unplea ded asse rtions of brea ch of c ontrac t and unjust 13 enric hment. O’Rourke then filed a motion for rec onsideration, which the District Court denied. 14 The District Court eve ntually g rante d summary

judgme nt ag ainst O’Rourke on its maritime lien 15 claims. This appea l followed. 16 On appe al, O’Rourke argues that the District Court er red in grantingjudgme nt to I NG 17 and in findingthat it was not entitled to a maritime lien under statute or in equity . We disag ree 18 with these conte ntions. The District Court properly conclude d that O’Rourke could not asser t a 19 maritime lien bec ause it did not meet the re quirements for a mar itime lien as set out by the 20 Commercial Instruments and Mar itime L iens Act (“ CI MLA”) , 46 U.S.C. § 31301 et seq. We 21 held in ING Bank N.V. v . M/V TEMARA , 892 F.3d 511 ( 2d Cir. 2018), that “CIMLA re quires 22 three elements for

a mar itime lien: (1) that the g oods or servic es at issue we re ‘ nece ssaries,’ (2) 23 that the entity

‘provid[ed]’ the nece ssaries to a ve ssel; and (3) that the entity provided the

31 nece ssaries ‘ on the orde r of the owner or a per son authorized by

the owner .’” M/V TEMARA , 2 892 F.3d at 519 (quoting 46 U .S.C. § 31342(a)). As to the third r equire ment, “CI MLA def ines 3 ‘per sons . . . presumed to have authority to procure nece ssaries f

or a ve ssel’ as ‘ (1) the owner; 4 (2) the ma ster; (3) a

person e ntrusted with the manag ement of the vessel at the por t of supply ; or 5 (4) a n office r or a g ent appointed by —(A) the owner ; (B) a cha rtere r; (C) an owner pr o hac vic e; 6 or (D) an agree d buy er in possession of the ve ssel.’” Id. (quoting46 U.S.C. § 31341(a)). 7 The District Court dete rmined that only the third of those re quirements wa s at issue and 8 conclude d that O’Rourke did not meet it. W e agree that O’Rourke did not supply the bunker s 9 upon the orde r of a

statutorily

authorized person, thus fa iling to meet CI MLA’s third 10 require ment for a

maritime lien. Instead, O’ Rourke wa s hired to supply the bunker s to the 11 Vessels by

a subcontra ctor, O.W. USA, who, in turn, was c ontrac ted by the bunker

contra ctor, 12 O.W. Far

East (Sing apore ) Pte, Ltd. (“O.W. Fa r East” ), who, in turn, wa s hired to provide 13 bunkers to the Ve ssels by the cor porate aff iliate of the a g ent of the V essels’ owne rs. O’Rourke 14 does not appe ar to dispute this contrac tual chain. O’ Rourke also did not adduc e any evidenc e 15 that would tend to establish that the subcontra ctor a nd its contractor

wer e in ag ency

relationships 16 with a statutorily

authorized person suc h that it could have be en construe d as being hired dire ctly 17 by them. See M

arine Fuel Supply &Towi ng, Inc. v . M/V Ken Lucky , 869 F.2d 473 ( 9th Cir. 18 1988). Nor did it adduc e evide nce that a statutorily authorized person c ontrolled the selec tion of 19 O’Rourke as the phy sical supplier. See LakeCharles Stevedore s, Inc. v . PROFESSOR 20 VLADIMI

R POPOV M V

, 199 F.3d 220 ( 5th Cir. 1999). 21 Instead, O’ Rourke mainly argues about the e ffe ct of a particula r cla use, cla use L .4(a) , of 22 the O.W. Far

East contra ctual ter

ms. That clause purports to bind the buy er of the bunker s (her e, 23 the Vesse ls’ ag ent) to the phy sical supplier’s te rms when the phy sical supplier “ insists ” that the

41 buy er be bound. O’Rourke argues that cla use mea ns the Vesse ls should be deemed to have 2 agree d to O’Rourke’ s own terms of sa le, which state that O’Rourke has a lien ove r the ve ssel for 3 the value of

the bunker s delivere d to it. The District Court prope rly reje cted that a

rgument. The 4 District Court properly conclude d that maritime liens are solely cre ature s of statute, not contra ct, 5 and ar e construe d strictly under the principle of stricti jur is . O’Rourke ’s terms of sa le ca nnot fill 6 the abse nce of

one of the statutory

require ments for a

maritime lien under CI MLA, namely that 7 O’Rourke had bee n hired by a statutorily

authorized person to supply the bunker s, which, in this 8 case , it was not. 9 Finally , O’Rourke argues that it should prevail on a the ory of unjust enrichme nt, even 10 though it neve r plea ded such a claim in its complaint, but i nstead mentioned suc h a theor y for 11 the first time in its mot ion for summary judgme nt. The District Court proper ly disreg arde d this 12 argument. A plaintiff ca nnot seek re lief on a c laim it failed to plead. Indeed, “ a district cour t 13 does not abuse its discre tion when it fails to gr ant leave to amend a c omplaint without being 14 asked to do so.” Gree nidge v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 446 F.3d 356, 361 ( 2d Cir. 2006). Whil e “plaintiffs who f

ailed to include a

claim in their complaint ca n move to amend the c omplaint” 15 16 and “if

summary judgme nt has bee n g rante d to their opponents, they can r aise the issue in a 17 motion for rec onsideration,” O ’Rourke “ took neither of the se steps.” Id. Nor wa s any sort of 18 unjust enrichment cla im tried by express or implied consent of the pa rties, so as to invoke Rule 19 15(b)( 2). The District Court wa s entitled to disreg ard suc h unpleade d claims. In addition, 2 20 O’Rourke ’s ar gument fails bec ause unjust enr ichment claims must be brought in personam , and 21 O’Rourke has filed only an in rem claim ag ainst the Vesse ls. See M /V TEMARA , 892 F.3d at 22 522. Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 15(b) (2) pr ovides, “When an issue not ra ised by the pleading s 2 is tried by the par ties’ express or implied consent, it must be treated in all respe cts as if ra ised in the pleading s.”

51 We have c onsidered O ’Rourke’ s other ar guments and find them to be without merit.

2 Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the District Court is AF F IRMED. 3 4 FOR THE COURT: 5 CATHERI NE O’H AGAN WOLFE, CL ERK 6 7

6