Naknek v. Jones Pac. Mar., LLC

Full title: NATIVE VILLAGE OF NAKNEK, Plaintiff, v. JONES PACIFIC MARITIME, LLC, et…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

Date published: May 13, 2015

CASE NO. C14-5740 BHS (W.D. Wash. May. 13, 2015)

Opinion

CASE NO. C14-5740 BHS

05-13-2015

NATIVE VILLAGE OF NAKNEK, Plaintiff, v. JONES PACIFIC MARITIME, LLC, et al., Defendants.

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Harvey B. Jones and Jones Pacific Maritime, LLC's (collectively "Jones") motion for order to show cause why arrest of the vessel SEAHORSE, on 292012, should not be vacated. Dkt. 30. The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby grants the motion for the reasons stated herein.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff Native Village of Naknek ("Naknek") filed a complaint against Jones in personam and the ship F/V SEAHORSE ("SEAHORSE") in rem in an action to clear title to SEAHORSE and restore her possession to Naknek. Dkt. 1. Naknek also filed an emergency motion for arrest of the vessel SEAHORSE. Dkt. 2. On September 18, 2014, the Court granted Naknek's motion. Dkt. 6. On October 7, 2014, the SEAHORSE was arrested. Dkt. 11.

On December 11, 2014, Naknek moved for judgment on the pleadings. Dkt. 19. On March 16, 2015, the Court denied Naknek's motion. Dkt. 28.

On March 26, 2015, Jones filed this motion for an order to show cause. Dkt. 30. On April 6, 2015, Naknek responded. Dkt. 33. On April 10, 2015, Jones filed a reply. Dkt. 36.

II. DISCUSSION

Jones asserts a right to a show cause hearing under the Supplemental Admiralty Rules of procedure, which provide in relevant part as follows:

Procedure for Release From Arrest or Attachment. Whenever property is arrested or attached, any person claiming an interest in it shall be entitled to a prompt hearing at which the plaintiff shall be required to show why the arrest or attachment should not be vacated or other relief granted consistent with these rules.

Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Admiralty Rule E(4)(f).

In this case, the Court is without discretion to deny Defendants' a hearing because the rule says that Defendants "shall be entitled to a prompt hearing . . . ." Id. Therefore, the Court grants the motion.

III. ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Jones's motion for order to show cause (Dkt. 30) is GRANTED and a show cause hearing is set for May 27, 2015, at 2:30 PM. The briefing schedule is as follows: Naknek's opening brief due 5/19/2015; Jones' response brief due 5/22/2015; Naknek's reply brief due 5/26/2015.

Dated this 13^th day of May, 2015.

/s/_________

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE

United States District Judge