16- 4065

- cv

Aeg ea n Bun ke ri ng ( USA) L L C v. M/ T AMAZ ON

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

Y ORDER RULING S BY SUM M ARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENT IAL EFFECT. CITA TI O N TO A SUM M ARY ORDER F IL ED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 20 07 , IS PERM ITT ED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROC EDURE 32 .1 AND TH IS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32 .1. 1. WHEN CITI NG A SUM M ARY ORDER IN A DOCUM ENT FILED WITH THIS COU R T, A P ARTY M UST CITE EIT HER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELE CTRO N IC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUM M ARY ORDER”) . A PARTY CITI NG A SUM M ARY ORDER M UST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY P ARTY NOT REPRESENTE D B Y COU NSEL.

1 At a s t at ed T erm of t he United States Court of Appeals for the Second C ircuit, held at the 2 T h u rgo od Marsha ll United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York o n t h e 3 10 day

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

_____________________________________________________ 10 11 Aeg ean B unkering(USA) L L C, 12 13 Plaintif f-Counter-Defe ndant-Cross-Defendant-Appe llant , 14 15 v. 16-4065-c v 16 17 M/T AMAZ ON, I MO 9476654, its eng ines, tackle and appa rel, 18 19 Defendant- in-Rem- Garnishee- Appellee , 20 21 J asper

Ex porting L td., 22 23 Defendant- in-Rem- Third Part y Plaintiff-Cros s Claimant-Count er 24 Claimant-Count er De fendant-Appellee , 25 26 I NG B ank N.V., 27 28 Intereste d Party-Third Party Defendant- Counter Clai mant-Cross 29 Claimant-Appellee , 30 31 Certain B unkers F O 500 CST, aboard or loaded a board the M/T AMAZ ON, Inc., 32 33 Defendant- in-Rem , 341 Be rg en B unkers, AS,

2 3 Defendant- in-Rem- Cross Defendant , 4 5 v. 6 7 O.W. Bunker

Malta L td., O.W. Bunker U SA, 8 9 Third Part y-D efendants

. 10

_____________________________________________________ 11 12 Appea

ringfor Ae g ean B unkering(USA) L L C: J . Stephen Simms , Casey L . Br y ant, 13 Simm s Showers L L P, Baltimore, MD. 14 15 Appea

ringfor M/T AMAZ ON and Jasper Exporting Ltd.: Michae l E. Ung er, G ina M. Vene zia, 16 Michae l J . Dehe rt, Fr eehill Hog an & 17 Mahar L L P, New Yor

k, N.Y. 18 19 Appea

ringfor I NG B ank N.V.: David Potter, L azare Potter & 20 Giacova s L L P, New Yor k, N.Y. 21 22 23 UP ON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJ UDG ED, AND 24 DECREED that the judg ment of the District Court is AF F IRMED

. 25 Appellant Aeg ean Bunke ring (USA) L L C appea ls from a judgme nt of the Unit ed S t ates 26 District Court for the Southern District of New Yo rk (F orre st, J. ) dismiss ing its maritime lien 27 and related claims arising from the provision of bunkers to a vessel. See Aege an Bunke ring 28 ( USA) LLC v. M/T AMAZON , No. 14-cv- 9447, 2016 WL 44718 9 5 (S

. D. N. Y. Aug

. 24, 2016). 29 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underly ing fac ts, proce dural history , and 30 specific ation of issues for r eview on a ppeal. 31 Ae gea n asser ts that as the party that phy sically supplied the bunkers to the vessel o n t h e 32 order of someone authorized to bind the vessel, it is entitled to a maritime lien ag ainst the v essel 33 for the value of the bunkers. Specifica lly , Aeg ean contends that the Distri ct C o u rt er roneously 34 conclude d that Aeg ean was not entitled to asser t a marit i m e l i en and that the Court should not

21 have g rante d judgme nt in favor of I NG Ba nk N.V (“I

NG”)

. As th e District Court corr ectly 2 observe d, there is no dispute that Aeg ean provided t h e b u n k ers to the vessel, thus Aeg ean is 3 entitled to a maritime lien if Aeg ean meets the require ments o f t h e C ommercia l Instruments and 4 Maritime L ien Act ( “CI ML A”) , 46 U.S.C. § 31301 et seq . 5 I. Marit im e Lien Claim

CI ML A require s three elements for a maritime l ien: “(1) that the g oods or service s at 6 7 issue wer e ‘nec essar ies,’ (2) that the entity ‘provid[ed]’ the nece ssaries t o a v es s el; and (3) that 8 the entity provided the nece ssaries ‘upon the order of the owner of such vessel or a person 9 authorized by the owner .’” ING Bank N.V. v. M/V TEMARA , 892 F.3d 511, 518 (2d Cir. 2018) 10 (q u o t i n g 4 6 U.S.C. § 31342(a) ). As to the third require ment, “CI ML A define s ‘per sons . . . 11 presumed to have authority to procur e nece ssaries for a vessel’ as ‘( 1 ) t h e owner ; (2) the master; 12 (3) a person entrusted with the manag ement o f the vessel at the port of supply ; or (4) an office r 13 or ag ent appointed by —(a) the owner ; (b) a char tere r; (c) an owner pro hac vice; or (d) an ag ree d 14 buy er in possession of the ve ssel.’” Id. (quoting 46 U.S.C. § 31341(a)). 15 Her e, as the District Court corr ectly conclude d, Aeg ean’ s enti t l em en t to a maritime lien 16 under CI ML A turns on whether it provided the bunkers “on the order of the owner or a person 17 authorized by the owner .” See M/T AMAZON , 2016 WL 4471895, at *7. Howeve r, Aeg ean did 18 not supply t h e bunkers on the order of a st atutorily authorized person. Instead, Aeg ean was hi red 19 to supply the bunkers to the vessel by a s u b co n trac tor, Be rg en, who was contra cted by another 20 subcontrac tor, O.W. USA, who in turn was contra cted by th e bunker contra ctor, O.W. Malta, 21 wh o was hired to provide bunkers to the vessel by the commerc ial manag er of the Vessel's 22 owner . Aeg ean does not appea r to dispute this contra ct u al ch ai n . Aeg ean also did not offe r 23 evidenc e that would establish that eac h of the subcontract o rs and their counter parties wer e in

31 ag ency relationships with a statutorily authorized person so that Aeg ean could be construed as

2 being hired direc tly by them. See Marine Fuel Supply & Towi ng, Inc. v. M/V KEN LUCK Y , 8 69 3 F.2d 473 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor did it adduce evidence that a statutorily authorized person 4 controlled the selec tion o f Aeg ean as the phy sical supplier. See Lake Charles Steve dores, Inc. v. 5 PROFESSOR VLADIMI R POPOV M

/V , 199 F.3d 220 ( 5th Cir. 1999). 6 Instead, Aeg ean mainly argues about the eff ect of a particula

r clause , clau s e L

. 4 , of the 7 O.W. contra ctual terms. That clause p u rports to make the buy er of the bunkers bound by the 8 phy sical supplier’s terms when the phy sical supplier “i n s i s t s ” that the buy er be bound. Aeg ean 9 argues t h at cl ause means the vessel should be deeme d to have agree d to Aeg ean’ s own terms of 10 sale. The District Court proper ly reje cted that argument, concluding that maritime liens are 11 s o l ely cre ature s of statute, not contra ct, and are construed strictly under the principle of s t r i ct i 12 juris
. Aeg ean’ s terms of sale cannot fil l t h e ab s en ce of one of the statutory require ments for a 13 maritime lien under CI ML A, namely that Aeg ean have b ee n hired by a statutorily authorized 14 person to supply

the bunker s, which, in this case, it wa s not. 15 II. Unjust Enrichme nt Claim 16 Next, Aeg ean argues that the District Court’s entry of j u d gm en t i n favor of I NG in the 17 amount of $994, 3 1 3

. 4 2 awarded I NG with a windfall. Aeg ean contends that O.W. Malta/I NG 18 and the vessel benef itted from the bunkers which Aeg ean provided, but the Di s t ri ct Court failed proper ly to consider that J asper , the O.W. entities, I NG, and the Vessel are liable to Aeg ean 19 20 under the theory

of unjust enrichme nt. 21 The District Court proper ly conclud ed that Aeg ean cannot preva il on this theory

. 22 Although unjust enric hment claims are available under m aritime law, they are in personam 23 claims that cannot m o rp h i n t o a maritime lien. See M/V TEMARA , 892 F.3d at 522. As the

41 District Court corr ectly observe d, claims for unjust enric h m en t m u s t b e brought in personam and

2 Aeg ean has only asser ted in rem claims in this action. See id. (obser ving that “ in rem maritime 3 liens ‘ca

nnot be confe rre d on the theory of unjust enric hment or subrog ation’” (quoting 2-I I 4 Be nedict on Admira lty § 24 (2017)) )

. Acc ording ly , Aeg ean’ s unjust enrichment cla im fails. 5 We have considere d the rema inder of Aeg ean’ s arguments an d find them to be without 6 merit. Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the District Court her eby is AF F IRMED

. 7 8 FOR THE COURT: 9 Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk 10

5