Opinion ID: 197477
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Coastal

Text: 110 Our Coastal analysis, in substance, tracks the Motor-Services analysis. Coastal moved to intervene on June 11, 1996, asserting a maritime lien for repair work done on the vessel and supplies furnished the vessel the previous summer. The district court, by written opinion on July 3, denied the motion on untimeliness grounds. The court applied the four-factor test discussed above, and its reasoning was much the same as that used in the Motor-Services' denial. The only substantive difference in the court's analysis involved the third factor, where the court found that Coastal had explicitly waived its lien by agreeing to a payment plan with a clause obligating Coastal to forebear from going in rem against the vessel. 111 On the first factor, in finding that Coastal did not move expeditiously to protect its interests, the court stressed the 22-day gap between the time Coastal first learned of the arrest and the time it sought intervention. We conclude that, under the unique circumstances of this case, Coastal acted reasonably promptly to protect its interests. 112 Vasilia was required, under the terms of its credit agreement with Coastal, to make monthly payments of $17,500; payments were due on the 8th of each month, starting in April 1996. 30 Vasilia made only partial payment in April, and failed to make the May payment. Coastal's president called Royal United on May 15, a week after the May 8 due date, to inquire about the non-payment. He was informed by Royal United that there was an ongoing dispute with Navieros and Comet regarding the charter of the vessel. While this is more information than Motor-Services was able to obtain when Vasilia failed to make its payment to Motor-Services at about the same time (May 19), Coastal, like Motor-Services, was not told of the arrest and the impending trial. 113 It is true that Coastal heard something about an arrest through other channels 31 during the week of May 20, but the information it obtained consisted only of unconfirmed reports. Coastal moved expeditiously to confirm these reports. By early June, it had learned the details, and by June 11 had moved to intervene. That Motor-Services managed to get its motion in four days earlier is immaterial. The first factor weighs in Coastal's favor. 114 As to the other factors, Coastal is in a similar position to Motor-Services and we will not repeat the analysis. 32 Two of the remaining three factors clearly favor intervention, and intervention should have been allowed.