Opinion ID: 779824
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Verification of Post IMAR Wages

Text: 18 Admiralty Supplemental Rule C(2)(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that when a party pursues an in rem action to enforce a maritime lien, the complaint for such an action must be verified. United States v. Argent Chem. Labs., Inc., 93 F.3d 572, 574 (9th Cir.1996) (Under the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims ..., an in rem action begins with a complaint that must `be verified on oath or solemn affirmation' and that must `describe with reasonable particularity the property that is the subject of the action.') (quoting Supplemental Rule C(2)). 19 Although Appellants' affidavits were attached to their complaint, these affidavits only pertained to wages due as of February 17, 2000; they were completely silent with regard to wages due Appellants for the post-IMAR period. Appellants never filed supplemental affidavits to verify the complaint's allegations of wages due for the post-IMAR period. 15 The district court correctly concluded that because Appellants' claims for wages owed during the post-IMAR charter period were not verified, no lien attached to the Fierce Packer, in rem.  20 Appellants contend that their claims should be considered in light of the trial testimony for the purpose of verification. But they have cited no case which holds that an unverified complaint can be cured by trial testimony. 16 To the contrary, controlling precedent dictates that Appellants' failure to verify their complaint deprived the district court of in rem jurisdiction. United States v. $84,740.00 U.S. Currency, 900 F.2d 1402, 1405 (9th Cir.1990), rev'd on other grounds, Republic Nat'l Bank v. United States, 506 U.S. 80, 89, 113 S.Ct. 554, 121 L.Ed.2d 474 (1992); see also Pizani v. M/V Cotton Blossom, 669 F.2d 1084, 1090 (5th Cir.1982) (Supplemental Rule C(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure... requires the filing of a verified complaint as a prerequisite to obtaining in rem jurisdiction.); Amstar Corp. v. M/V Alexandros T., 431 F.Supp. 328, 334 (D.Md.1977) (Both Supplemental Rule B(1) and Supplemental Rule C(2) require that an action of this sort be instituted by means of a verified complaint.), aff'd, 664 F.2d 904 (4th Cir.1981). Given that the complaint failed entirely to verify the post-IMAR wage claims, the district court lacked in rem jurisdiction over those claims. Accordingly, the district court correctly held that no lien for Appellants' wage claims could attach to the Fierce Packer in rem for post-IMAR period wage claims.