A Case of Lost Beans
A Case of Lost Beans
By: Megan Finger
Middleton v. M/V Glory Sky, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2242 (S.D.Fla. Jan. 5, 2017).The original suit that produced this litigation is a dispute over beans. Plaintiff, Middleton, filed suit against the entity that owned the Glory Sky alleging conversion of 3,800 bags of black kidney beans. Plaintiff stated the entity had agreed to store 5,500 bags of black kidney beans at a warehouse in Florida, and that the entity unlawfully removed 3,800 bags and shipped them to Haiti aboard the Glory Sky. Plaintiff obtained a state court judgment and subsequently initiated suit in federal court seeking a warrant of arrest in rem for the Glory Sky. The warrant issued, and the vessel was arrested on June 27, 2013. In response, Defendant filed an emergency motion arguing that the Court lacked admiralty jurisdiction to issue the arrest warrant because the alleged conversion of the beans did not occur on navigable waterways. As a result, the Court subsequently vacated the arrest of the Glory Sky. After release of the vessel, Defendant filed a motion seeking attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Admiralty Rule C(7) and Rule 7.3 of the Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida. This motion for attorneys’ fees is the subject of the current dispute.The issue at hand was submitted to Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres and on the question of whether Admiralty Rule C(7) allows for mandatory attorneys’ fees or whether it is limited to bad faith acts by reference to authority under 28 U.S.C. §2072 (Section 2072 expressly limits the reach of a court’s local rules to rules of practice and procedure: “such that rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right.”). Magistrate Judge Torres concluded that no such Congressional approval was given to automatically award attorneys’ fees upon vacating the arrest of a vessel. He stated further that it is likely that the drafters of Admiralty Rule C(7) and Local Rule 7.3 intended to provide parties with express notice of traditional maritime principles that allow for an award of fees in wrongful seizure cases, but that such principles require the party moving for fees to demonstrate the plaintiff acted in bad faith, with malice, or wanton disregard for the rights of his opponent in initiating the suit. Following this conclusion Magistrate Judge Torres recommended the Defendant’s requests for fees be denied as there was no presence of bad faith acts among Plaintiff’s conduct.
