Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

World Fuel Services Singapore Pte, Ltd. v. Bulk Juliana M/V

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

February 11, 2015

WORLD FUEL SERVICES SINGAPORE PTE, LTD
v.
BULK JULIANA M/V ET AL., Section

ORDER AND REASONS

MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN, District Judge.

Before the Court are cross-motions for partial summary judgment by World Fuel Services (Singapore) and Bulk Juliana Ltd. as to what body of law governs the existence of a maritime lien in this case. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that United States law governs the transaction, and thus WFS Singapore has a maritime lien against M/V BULK JULIANA. WFS Singapore's motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED, and Bulk Juliana's is DENIED.

Background

This admiralty and maritime case concerns a Singapore-based marine fuel supplier's attempt to recover a debt arising from the supply of fuel oil bunkers in Singapore to a Panamanian-flag vessel, the M/V BULK JULIANA, which is beneficially owned by a United States company, operated and managed by a United States company, and which was chartered by a German company.

The M/V BULK JULIANA is a dry bulk cargo vessel flying under the flag of Panama. Its registered owner is Bulk Juliana Ltd. of Bermuda; however, the vessel is beneficially owned by Bulk Partners Ltd., and operated and managed by Phoenix Bulk Carriers U.S. LLC. During the relevant time, the vessel was time chartered to Denmar Chartering and Trading, GmbH, a German company, pursuant to a charter party dated August 13, 2012.

On or about November 12, 2012, World Fuel Services (Singapore) Pte., Ltd. (WFS Singapore) contends that it supplied bunker fuel to the M/V BULK JULIANA at the Port of Singapore. The agreement between WFS Singapore and Denmar for the sale and delivery of the bunkers was subject to the World Fuel Services Corporation Marine Group of Companies (WFS) General Terms and Conditions. The General Terms and Conditions contains the following choice of law provision:

17. LAW AND JURISDICTION: The General Terms and each Transaction shall be governed by the General Maritime Law of the United States and, in the event that the General Maritime Law of the United States is silent on the disputed issue, the law of the State of Florida, without reference to any conflict of laws rules which may result in the application of the laws of another jurisdiction. The General Maritime Law of the United States shall apply with respect to the existence of a maritime lien, regardless of the country in which Seller takes legal action....

The Bunker Confirmation issued by WFS Singapore to Denmar provides that the total fuel cost must be paid by within thirty days from the date of delivery. WFS Singapore maintains that it has never been paid.

Upon learning that the M/V BULK JULIANA was in the Port of New Orleans, on August 13, 2013, WFS Singapore sued the vessel, in rem, and Denmar, in personam, in this Court. WFS Singapore requested that the Court issue an arrest warrant for the M/V BULK JULIANA and a writ of attachment against Denmar. Based on the allegations of the verified complaint, and pursuant to Rules B and C of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court issued an arrest warrant and a writ of foreign attachment. The U.S. Marshals then arrested the M/V BULK JULIANA, and this Court granted permission for movement of the arrested vessel within the district. Bulk Juliana Ltd. then posted security to obtain release of the vessel. On February 8, 2014, WFS Singapore voluntarily dismissed Denmar without prejudice after learning that it had become insolvent.

Bulk Juliana Ltd., making a restricted appearance under Supplemental Rule E(8) as owner and claimant of the M/V BULK JULIANA and with full reservation of rights and defenses, sought to vacate the warrant of arrest issued against the M/V BULK JULIANA on the ground that WFS Singapore does not possess a maritime lien against the vessel and therefore was not entitled to proceed in rem. This Court, finding that WFS Singapore had shown probable cause for the arrest of the M/V BULK JULIANA, denied the motion to vacate the arrest. In that Order and Reasons, dated June 16, 2014, the Court was persuaded that there was probable cause to find that U.S. law governed the availability of a maritime lien.

WFS Singapore then moved for summary judgment, stating in its briefing that this Court had definitively ruled in its June 16 Order and Reasons that U.S. law governed the transaction. Bulk Juliana responded that the standard to prevail on summary judgment is more demanding than that applicable to a motion to vacate an arrest, and that therefore WFS Singapore could not base its argument for the application of U.S. law solely on statements made in this Court's Order and Reasons denying the motion to vacate the arrest. The Court agreed, and now the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment as to the choice-of-law question.

I.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 instructs that summary judgment is proper if the record discloses no genuine dispute as to any material fact such that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. No genuine dispute of fact exists if the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). A genuine dispute of fact exists only "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

The Court emphasizes that the mere argued existence of a factual dispute does not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion. See id. Therefore, "[i]f the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, " summary judgment is appropriate. Id. at 249-50 (citations omitted). Summary judgment is also proper if the party opposing the motion fails to establish an essential element of his case. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). In this regard, the nonmoving party must do more than simply deny the allegations raised by the moving party. See Donaghey v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co., 974 F.2d 646, 649 (5th Cir. 1992). Rather, he must come forward with competent evidence, such as affidavits or depositions, to buttress his claim. Id. Hearsay evidence and unsworn documents that cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence at trial do not qualify as competent opposing evidence. Martin v. John W. Stone Oil Distrib., Inc., 819 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1987); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(2). Finally, in evaluating the summary judgment motion, the Court must read the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. Because the grounds for the claimant's cross-motion are largely the same as its defenses to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and because ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.