U S INCORPORATED v. TUG SEGUIN

Civil Action No. 16-00530-N.

U S INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, v. TUG SEGUIN, in rem, and HARTLEY MARINE SERVICES, INC. and CLEARVIEW MARINE, INC., in personam, Defendants.

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1333
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1333 Marine - Contract Dispute
Nature of Suit: 120 Contract: Marine
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

U S Incorporated, Plaintiff, represented by Ray M. Thompson .


ORDER

KATHERINE P. NELSON, Magistrate Judge.

This action is before the Court sua sponte on review of the record. The Plaintiff, U S Incorporated, has brought a Verified Complaint (Doc. 5) against the Defendants under Rules B, C, and E of the Federal Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset for Forfeiture Actions. On January 13, 2017, the United States Marshal served Defendant Hartley Marine Services, Inc. ("Hartley") with a writ of foreign attachment issued under Supplemental Rule B. (See Doc. 25 at 2). Accordingly, Hartley was required to serve answer within 30 days (i.e., no later than February 13, 2017). See Supp. R. B(3)(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1). To date, Hartley has not done so, nor has it otherwise appeared in this action.

On January 13, 2017, the Marshal also arrested the Defendant TUG SEGUIN pursuant to a warrant issued under Supplemental Rule C. (See Doc. 25 at 1). The Plaintiff subsequently gave notice of its intent to published public notice as required by Supplemental Rule C(4), which specified that the time for interested parties to file verified statements of right or interest under Rule C(6) was April 26, 2017. (See Doc. 29).1 To date, no interested party has done so or otherwise appeared.

Upon consideration, no later than June 19, 2017, the Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a request for an entry of default against Defendants Hartley and TUG SEGUIN under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) and S.D. Ala. Civil Local Rule 104(d) (setting forth additional requirements for seeking entry of default and default judgment in in rem cases), or to show cause in writing for its inability to do so.2

DONE and ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. The Plaintiff has not file proof of such publication, however.
2. Under S.D. Ala. GenLR 73(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), this case has been randomly assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including entry of a final judgment, as set out in the Notice of Assignment to United States Magistrate Judge for Trial entered December 20, 2016. (Doc. 13). The Notice of Assignment informs the parties that they "have the right to have this action reassigned to a United States District Judge for trial and disposition," and makes clear that "[a]ny party may request reassignment by" confidentially emailing the Clerk of Court a "Request for Reassignment to a United States District Judge." Inasmuch as no party, to date, has returned to the Clerk of Court a Request for Reassignment, there presently exists implicit consent to the undersigned conducting all proceedings in this case. See Chambless v. Louisiana-Pac. Corp., 481 F.3d 1345, 1350 (11th Cir. 2007) ("[T]he Supreme Court held in Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580, 123 S.Ct. 1696, 155 L. Ed. 2d 775 (2003), that consent to a magistrate judge's jurisdiction can be inferred from a party's conduct during litigation. Id. at 582, 123 S.Ct. 1696. The Court refused to adopt a bright-line rule requiring express consent, instead accepting implied consent `where . . . the litigant or counsel was made aware of the need for consent and the right to refuse it, and still voluntarily appeared to try the case before the Magistrate Judge.' Id. at 589-90, 123 S.Ct. 1696.").

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases