17-1378-cv

Nippon Kaisha Line Limited v. NuStar Energy Services, Inc.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
S U M M A R Y O R D E R
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO N OT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS P ERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED B Y FEDERAL RULE O F A PPELLATE PROCEDURE 3 2.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A P ARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX O R AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WI T H T H E N O T A T ION " SUMMARY ORDER" ). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A C O P Y O F IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated Ter m of the Uni ted S tates Cour t of Appeals for the S econd Ci r cui t, held at the Thur good Mar shall Uni ted S tates Cour thouse a t Foley S quar e, in the Ci ty of New Yor k, on the 19 t hday of December, two thousand ei ghteen.
Pr esent: AMALYA L. KEARS E,

JOS É A. CABRANES , RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,

Circuit Judges

.

_____________________________________________________ NIPPON KAIS HA L INE LIMITED, indi v i d ually and on behalf of M/V RIGEL LEADER (IMO No. 9604940),

Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee ,

- v . - No. 17-1378 *



### * Thi s appeal was consol i dated for purposes of oral argument wi th the appeal i n C l earl ake Shi ppi ng PTE Ltd. v. NuStar Energy Servi ces, Inc., No. 17-1458, whi ch i s resol ved today i n an opi ni on, and wi th the appeal s i n U.S. Oi l Tradi ng LLC v. M/V VIENNA EXPRESS, No. 17-0922, and Hapag-Ll oyd Akti engesel l schaft v. U.S. Oi lTradi ng LLC , No. 17-0931, whi c h are resol ved today i n a separate opi ni on.Nippon Kaisha Line Ltd. v. NuStar Energy Services, Inc. , No. 17-1378

NUS TAR ENERGY S ERVICES , INC.,

D e f e n d a n t

- C r o s s - D e

f e n d a n t

- C r o s s - C l a i m a n t

Appellant, O.W. BUNKER US A, INC.,

D e f e n d a n t

- C r o s s - C l a i m a n t

- C o u n t e r - C l a i m a n t

Appellee,
KIRBY INLAND MARINE LP,

Defendant, ING BANK N.V., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-CrossDefendant

. * *

_____________________________________________________

For Plainti ff-Counter

Defendant-Appellee: M A R I E E

. L A R S E N , N e w Y o r k , N Y ( J a m e s H

. P o w e r , Holland & Kni ght, New Yor k, NY, on the br i ef).
For Defendant-Cr ossDefendant-Cr oss-Clai mantAppellant: JONATHAN S

. FRANKLIN, W ashington, DC (Mar k Emer y, Nor ton Rose Fulbr i ght US , Washington, DC; K ei th B. Letour neau, Blank Rome, Houston, TX, on the br i ef).
For Defendant-Cr oss-Clai mantCounter -Clai mant-Appellee: DAVIS LEE WRIGHT, New Yor k, NY ( Vincent M. DeOr chi s, Rober t E. O'Connor , and Kaspar Ki elland, Montgomer y, McCr acken, W alker & Rhoads, New Yor k, NY, on the br i ef).



### ** The C l erk of C ourt i s i nstructed to amend the offi ci alcapti on i n thi s appeal to conform wi th the above.

2Nippon Kaisha Line Ltd. v. NuStar Energy Services, Inc. , No. 17-1378

Appeal fr om the Uni ted S tates Di str i c t Cour t for the S outher nDi s tr i ct of New Yor k.
Thi s cause came on to be hear d on the recor d fr om the Uni ted S tates Di str i ct Cour t for the S outher n Di str i c t of New Yor k and was ar gued by counsel.
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the j udgment of sai d Di s tr i ct Cour t be and i t her eby i s AFFIRMED

. Inter pleader defendant NuS tar Ener gy S er v i ces, Inc. ("NuS tar "), a physi cal suppli er of mar ine fuel ("bunker s") to the M/V RIGEL LEADER, a v essel t im e -c ha r ter ed b y inter pleader plainti ff Ni ppon Kai s ha Line Li mi ted ("NYK L ine"), appeals fr om or d er s and an Apr i l 18, 2017 par ti al fin al j udgment of the Uni ted S tates Di str i ct Cour t for the Souther n Di str i c t of New Yor k, Valer i e E. Capr oni, Judge, denyi ng NuS tar 's m oti on for s u mmar y judgment a nd di smi ssing i ts clai m to a mar i ti me li en agai nst th e vessel. We assume the par ti es' fami li ar i ty wi th the under lyi ng facts, pr ocedur al hi stor y, and i s sues forr ev i ew. In thi s acti on and thr ee other s, among the m any cases that hav e b een br ought in the wake of the financi a l collapse of O.W. Bunker & Tr a ding A/S and i ts subsi di ar i es and affi li at e s , the di str i ct cour t r uled pr in ci pally (a) that the bunker s' physi cal suppli er s—NuS tar in two cases and a d i ffer ent physi cal suppli er in the other two—wer e subcontr actor s and wer e not enti tled, under the Commer ci al Instr uments and Mar i ti me Lie n s Act ("CIMLA"), 46 U.S

. C. § 31301 et seq. , to asser t m ar i ti me li ens a gai nst vessels because the physi cal suppli er s h a d n o t suppli ed the bunker s "on the or der of the owner or a per son a u thor i zed b y the owner " of the v essels, id

. § 31342(a), and (b) that such li ens ar e n ot a uthor i zed on the basi s of equi table pr inci ples. See Clearlake Shipping PTE Ltd. v. O.W. Bunker (Switzerland) SA , 239 F.S upp.3d 674, 684–90, 692–94 (S .D.N.Y. 2017).
In the compani on appeal fr om the di smi ssal of th e m ar i ti me-li en c lai ms asser ted by NuS tar in No. 17-145 8 , d e c i d e d today, w e affi r med these rulings substanti ally for the r easons stated by the di s tr i c t cour t, see Clearlake Shipping PTE Ltd. v. NuStar E nergy Services, Inc. , --- F.3d

--- (2d Ci r . 2018) (" NuStar I "), noti ng, inter alia, that these conclusi ons ar e compelled by our r ecent deci si on in ING Bank N.V. v. M/V TEMARA , 892 F.3d 511, 520–23 (2d Ci r . 2018).
As to the v essel at i ssue in the instant case, the recor d shows that the char ter er NYK Line placed i ts or der for bunker s wi th i ts affi li ate NYK Tr ading Cor por ati on ("NYK Tr ading" ); that NYK Tr ading placed an or der f or the bunker s w i th O.W. B unk e r U S A , Inc. ("O.W. US A") and asked O.W. US A to adv i se NYK Tr adin g o f the i denti ty of the physi c al s uppli er . O.W. US A placed i ts or der for the bunker s w i th NuS tar and so adv i sed NYK Tr ading. NYK Li ne had no contr actual r elati onshi p wi th O.W. US A or NuS tar

. NuS tar had no contr actual r elati onshi p wi th

3Nippon Kaisha Line Ltd. v. NuStar Energy Services, Inc. , No. 17-1378

NYK L ine or NYK Tr ading. Thus, her e, a s in NuStar I , NuS tar has pr esented no basi s on whi ch i t could be concluded that i t pr ov i ded the b unker s to the v essel on the or der of the char ter er or i ts author i zed agent.
Nor i s ther e any basi s in the r ecor d of the pr esent c ase f or a r emand s uch a s that or der ed in the other two comp a nio n a ppeals, U.S

. Oi l Tr adin g LLC v. M/V VIENNA EXPRES S , No. 17-0922, and Hapag-Lloyd Akti engesellschaft v . U.S

. Oi l T rading L L C, No. 17-0931, see U.S. Oil Trading LLC v. M/V VIENNA EXPRESS , --- F.3d --- (2d Ci r . 2018), f or a tr i al as to whether the M/V RIGEL L EADER's char ter er, NYK Line, or i ts author i zed agent or der ed or di r ected that NuS tar be the physi cal s uppli er of the bunker s to that vessel, so as to br ing NuS tar wi thi n the excepti on to the gener al r u l e t ha t s ubcontr actor s ar e not enti tled to asser t mar i ti m e li ens, see id

. at xxx (excepti on appli cable wher e the owner /char ter er or i ts agent contr olled or d i rected the selecti on of a p ar ti cular subcontr actor ). The r ecor d her e shows that NYK L in e placed i ts or der for bunker s wi th NYK Tr ading pur suant to a pr eexi s ti ng contr act that r equi r ed NYK Tr a ding to choose fr om a li st of a ppr ov ed bunker suppli er s and that expli ci tly left that choi ce t o N Y K T r ading. N Y K T r a d ing in i ts pur ch ase or der to O.W. US A di d not name a physi cal suppli er but r a t h e r asked O.W. US A to i nfor m NYK Tr ading who the physi cal suppli erwould be.
In NuStar I

, w e a ffi r med the di str i ct cour t's conclusi on that NuS tar di d not come wi thi n the subcontr actor excepti on because the r ecor d, r a ther than p e r m it ti ng a conclusi on that the v essel's char ter er di r ected use of NuS tar as the ph y s ic a l suppli er, showed at most that the char ter er was mer ely awar e of and taci tly accepted N uS tar as the p hysi cal suppli er . Gi v en that r u lin g , a fortiori NYK Lin e's instr ucting NYK Tr ading to select the physi cal suppli er, and NYK Tr ading's asking O.W. US A to make the selecti on, cannot suppor t a conclusi on of di r ecti on or c ontr ol by the v essel's char ter eror i ts agent.
We hav e consi der ed all of NuS tar 's ar guments on thi s appeal and hav e found them to b e wi thout mer i t. The j u dgment of the di str i ct cour t i s AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT: CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE, Cler k of Cour t

4