Case: 21-60501 Document: 00516277666 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 12, 2022
No. 21-60501 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Central Boat Rentals, Incorporated; Global Towing
Service, L.L.C.; Offshore Towing, Incorporated;
McAllister Towing of New York, L.L.C.; Curtin
Maritime Corporation,
Intervenors—Appellants,
versus
M/V Nor Goliath, in rem; Goliath Offshore Holdings,
Private Limited, in personam,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC Nos. 1:19-CV-391, 1:19-CV-935
Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Higginbotham and Elrod, Circuit
Judges.
Patrick E. Higginbotham, Circuit Judge:
Again, the familiar question of whether provisions were a “necessary”
under the Commercial Instruments and Maritime Liens Act (“CIMLA”). 1
1
46 U.S.C. § 31301 et seq.
Case: 21-60501 Document: 00516277666 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2022
No. 21-60501
To its answer, able counsel bring creative arguments urging that we expand
CIMLA’s reach. We decline the invitation and affirm the judgment of the
district court.2
I.
This dispute arose from the bankruptcy of Epic Companies, L.L.C.3
Epic was a general contractor that decommissioned oil platforms in the Gulf
of Mexico, subcontracting with owners of various vessels to complete
decommissioning projects, including heavy lift vessels, material barges, and
tugboats. The M/V Nor Goliath was a heavy lift vessel hired by Epic to lift
oil platform components out of the water and place them onto barges.
Tugboats then towed the loaded barges from the Nor Goliath’s location in
the Gulf to an inland scrapyard for further dismantling, returning to the Nor
Goliath with empty barges. These tugboats were owned by various towing
companies.4
Upon Epic’s bankruptcy, the suppliers looked elsewhere to recoup
their costs. The Towing Companies joined a suit filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, seeking to assert and
enforce maritime liens under CIMLA against the Nor Goliath, maintaining
that the tugboats provided it necessary services by towing the barges. The
Nor Goliath and the Towing Companies each filed motions for summary
2
We have jurisdiction to review this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(a)(3) as the district court’s grant of summary judgment determined the rights and
liabilities of parties in an admiralty case.
3
See In re Epic Companies, LLC, No. 19-34752 (Bankr. S. D. Tex., filed August 26,
2019).
4
The Towing Companies are the named Intervenors-Appellants: Central Boat
Rentals, Inc.; Global Towing Service, L.L.C.; Offshore Towing Inc.; McAllister Towing of
New York, L.L.C.; and Curtin Maritime Corp.
2
Case: 21-60501 Document: 00516277666 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/12/2022
No. 21-60501
judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to the Nor Goliath,
holding that the services rendered by the tugboats did not create a lien on the
Nor Goliath.5 The Towing Companies timely appealed.
II.
We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment.6 We
affirm a summary judgment ruling “when the nonmoving party fails to meet
its burden to come forward with facts and law demonstrating a basis for
recovery that would support a jury verdict.”7 “Whether a maritime lien
exists is a question of law, reviewed de novo.”8
III.
Under CIMLA,
a person providing necessaries to a vessel on the order of the
owner or a person authorized by the owner (1) has a maritime
lien on the vessel; (2) may bring a civil action in rem to enforce
the lien; and (3) is not required to allege or prove in the action
that credit was given to the vessel.9
“‘[N]ecessaries’ includes repairs, supplies, towage, and the use of a dry dock
or marine railway.”10
5
See Arc Controls, Inc. v. M/V Nor Goliath, No. 1:19CV391-LG-RPM, 2021 WL
1971485, (S.D. Miss. May 17, 2021).
6
World Fuel Servs. Singapore Pte, Ltd. v. Bulk Juliana M/V, 822 F.3d 766, 770 (5th
Cir. 2016).
7
Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1071 (5th Cir. 1994).
8
Comar Marine, Corp. v. Raider Marine Logistics, LLC, 792 F.3d 564, 575 (5th Cir.
2015) (italicization added).
9
46 U.S.C. § 31342(a).
10
46 U.S.C. § 31301(4).
3
Case: 21-60501 Document: 00516277666 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/12/2022
No. 21-60501
“We apply the provisions of CIMLA stricti juris to ensure that
maritime liens are not lightly extended by construction, analogy, or
inference.”11 Necessaries “includes most goods or services that are useful to
the vessel, keep her out of danger, and enable her to perform her particular
function. These are items useful to vessel operations and necessary to keep
the ship going.”12 “Necessaries are the things that a prudent owner would
provide to enable a ship to perform well the functions for which she has been
engaged.”13 We look to the “particular function” and requirements of a ship
to determine what is a necessary for that ship.14
IV.
First, the Towing Companies argue that the Nor Goliath’s particular
function was the entirety of the decommissioning process, therefore every
good or service used to decommission an oil platform was a necessary to the
Nor Goliath. We disagree. The decommissioning project was Epic’s goal as
the general contractor. Indeed, Epic hired a fleet of vessels for the project. As
the Nor Goliath’s role was to lift platform components and place them on the
barges,15 its necessaries are goods or services it used for this particular
function.
11
Valero Mktg. & Supply Co. v. M/V Almi Sun, IMO No. 9579535, 893 F.3d 290, 292
(5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotations omitted).
12
Martin Energy Servs., L.L.C. v. Bourbon Petrel M/V, 962 F.3d 827, 831 (5th Cir.
2020) (internal quotations omitted).
13
Equilease Corp. v. M/V Sampson, 793 F.2d 598, 603 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc).
14
Martin, 962 F.3d at 832–33. See also Equilease, 793 F.2d at 603 (“What is a
‘necessary’ is to be determined relative to the requirements of the ship.”).
15
See Arc Controls, Inc. v. M/V NOR GOLIATH, No. 1:19CV391-LG-RPM, 2021
WL 2931426, at *2 (S.D. Miss. July 12, 2021).
4
Case: 21-60501 Document: 00516277666 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/12/2022
No. 21-60501
Second, the Towing Companies argue their towing services provided
the barges to the Nor Goliath, and the barges are equipment necessary for the
Nor Goliath’s particular function. Not so. In Trico Marine Operators, Inc. v.
Falcon Drilling Co., we held that drilling equipment was a necessary for an
offshore drilling vessel, for the equipment was necessary for the vessel’s
particular function—drilling.16 Then, in Martin Energy Servs., L.L.C. v.
Bourbon Petrel M/V, we held that gasoline is not a necessary to a vessel tasked
with carrying the gasoline as cargo to another vessel for its consumption, only
the consuming vessel received a necessary.17 This is because liens arise when
“the good or service was provided for use by the vessel itself.” 18
It is plain that the barges were not equipment for the Nor Goliath, did
not help the Nor Goliath’s crane raise and lower the platform components,
and so the Nor Goliath did not “use” the barges. It follows that the Towing
Companies did not provide a service necessary to the Nor Goliath’s
particular function.
Third, the Towing Companies alternatively contend that they
provided a necessary as the decommissioning project would have ground to
a halt without the tugboats moving the barges; thus the Nor Goliath indirectly
benefitted from the towing of the barges. The argument that maritime liens
arise from indirect benefit misapprehends the concept of liens for
necessaries. Mutually beneficial conduct is expected when each vessel was
hired by the same general contractor. Indeed, every ship in Epic’s fleet
indirectly benefitted from the barges being towed just as every ship indirectly
benefitted from the Nor Goliath’s lifting and loading. But mutually beneficial
16
116 F.3d 159, 162 (5th Cir. 1997).
17
Martin, 962 F.3d at 832–33.
18
Id. at 833.
5
Case: 21-60501 Document: 00516277666 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/12/2022
No. 21-60501
conduct alone cannot give rise to a maritime lien under CIMLA, otherwise
multi-ship operations would give rise to an untenable situation where all the
ships in a fleet would have liens on the other. In short, maritime liens for
necessaries run against the vessel that received the necessary and no
further.19
V.
Note that the Towing Companies also claim that they are entitled to
maritime liens as they protected the Nor Goliath from the hazards of the sea,
alleging that the Nor Goliath would be in danger if it was forced to hold an oil
platform component suspended by its crane in choppy waters. Whatever its
merits, the Towing Companies did not present any evidence of the danger
these conditions posed to the Nor Goliath, which previously suspended and
transported large loads without the aid of barges. As the nonmovants at the
summary judgment stage, the Towing Companies did not meet their burden
to demonstrate that the Nor Goliath was in danger beyond their conclusory
allegations and unsubstantiated assertions.20
VI.
Ultimately these arguments for extending the protection of liens for
necessaries provided by CIMLA fail to accept that the primacy of the lien is
essential to its role of securing necessaries for vessels. They require the
suppliers of necessaries, as we have defined them, to share pro rata with other
creditors, a loss of primacy diluting the incentive to suppliers to the
detriment of CIMLA’s core mission. These economic realities were not lost
on Congress as evidenced by its singular treatment of maritime liens,
19
Id.
20
Little, 37 F.3d at 1075.
6
Case: 21-60501 Document: 00516277666 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/12/2022
No. 21-60501
providing a separate statutory pathway for enforcement within CIMLA.21
Attentive to the economic realities to which CIMLA’s plain language
responds, we apply its language stricti juris.22
The Towing Companies fail to demonstrate a legal basis for their
claimed maritime liens against the Nor Goliath. The district court’s grant of
summary judgment is AFFIRMED.
21
46 U.S.C. § 31342.
22
Valero, 893 F.3d at 292.
7