MBH Mar. Interest LLC v. Joseph Manteiga & Treichel Marine Repair, Inc.

MBH MARITIME INTEREST LLC, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH MANTEIGAand TREICHEL MARINE REPAIR, INC., Defendants.

Case No. 17-61909-CIV-O'SULLIVAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

March 15, 2018

[CONSENT]

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's, Joseph Manteiga, Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's, MBH Maritime Interest LLC, Second Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim with Which Relief Can Be Granted Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and Supporting Memorandum of Law (DE# 22, 11/21/17) and Treichel Marine Repair Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss MBH Maritime Interest LLC's Second Amended Complaint (DE# 23, 11/27/17).

BACKGROUND

This action stems from an allision¹ which occurred on December 1, 2016 when the M/Y Bottom Line (a vessel owned by Joseph Manteiga) struck the M/Y Traveller (avessel owned by MBH Maritime Interest LLC (hereinafter "plaintiff" or "MBH")). The plaintiff's insurer, Federal Insurance Company, brought an action to recover the costs of repairing the M/Y Traveller. See Federal Insurance Company v. Manteiga et al, Case No. 17-cv-60766-O'SULLIVAN.² Additionally, the plaintiff brought the instant action, MBH Maritime Interest LLC v. Manteiga et al, Case No. 17-cv-61909-O'SULLIVAN, seeking to recover damages not covered by the vessel's insurance. On October 12, 2017, the Court issued a Consolidation Order (DE# 15) consolidating both cases.

On November 14, 2017, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the instant case against defendants Joseph Manteiga (hereinafter "Manteiga") and Treichel Marine Services, Inc. (hereinafter "Treichel"). See Plaintiff MBH Maritime Interest LLC's Second Amended Complaint (DE# 18, 11/14/17) (hereinafter "SAC"). The SAC alleged the following causes of action: negligence against Manteiga (Count I), negligen[t] entrustment against Manteiga (Count II) and negligence against Treichel (Count III). Id. In all three counts, the plaintiff alleged that it incurred damages "in the form of [the M/Y Traveller's] diminution in market value, post-repair, as a result of owner's duty to disclose material vessel damage, as a matter of custom and practice in the yachting industry." Id. at ¶¶ 11, 14, 17.

On November 21, 2017, the defendants filed the instant motions to dismiss. See Defendant's, Joseph Manteiga, Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's, MBH Maritime Interest LLC, Second Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim with Which Relief Can Be Granted Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and Supporting Memorandum of Law (DE#22, 11/21/17) (hereinafter "Manteiga's Motion"); Treichel Marine Repair Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss MBH Maritime Interest LLC's Second Amended Complaint (DE# 23, 11/27/17) (hereinafter "Treichel's Motion"). The plaintiff filed its responses to the instant motions on December 5, 2017 and December 11, 2017. See Plaintiff MBH Maritime Interest LLC's Response to Defendant Joseph Manteiga's ("Manteiga") Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (DE 22) (DE# 30, 12/5/17) (hereinafter "Response to Manteiga's Motion"); Plaintiff MBH Maritime Interest LLC's Response to Defendant Treichel Marine Repair, Inc.'s ("Treichel") Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (DE 23) (DE# 33, 12/11/17) (hereinafter "Response to Treichel's Motion"). The defendants filed their replies on December 12, 2017 and December 18, 2017. See Defendant's, Joseph Manteiga, Reply to Plaintiff MBH Maritime Interest LLC's Response to Defendant Manteiga's ("Manteiga") Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (DE# 36, 12/12/17) (hereinafter "Manteiga's Reply"); Treichel Marine Repair Inc.'s Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss (DE# 42, 12/18/17) (hereinafter "Treichel's Reply").

In the interim, the plaintiff filed a motion asking the Court to take judicial notice of a form listing agreement from the International Yacht Brokers Association, Inc. See Plaintiff MBH Maritime Interest LLC's Motion for Judicial Notice Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(2) and (d) (DE# 32, 12/11/17). On December 19, 2017, the Court denied the plaintiff's request for judicial notice stating that:

First of all, a motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint. The Court finds no support in the law for Plaintiff's proposition that it should examine the allegations in light of extraneous documents which establish "context" for the allegations. On the contrary, as Plaintiff's cases hold, the Court may only consider documents that are central to orreferenced in the complaint. SeeLa Grasta v. First Union Securities, 358 F.3d 840, 845 (11th Cir. 2004). This document is not referenced in the complaint. Neither is it clear from the face of the complaint that it is central to it. Industry custom and practice may be a central issue in this case, but that is a question of fact to be resolved at summary judgment or trial. Finally, Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs have not established the authenticity of this form agreement.

Order (DE# 43 at 2-3, 12/19/17). Accordingly, the undersigned will not consider the listing agreement when ruling on the instant motions.

Additionally, on February 14, 2018, the undersigned issued an Order requiring the movants to file a notice indicating whether the instant motions to dismiss should be consolidated. See Order (DE# 61 at 1-2, 2/14/18). On February 21, 2018, Treichel filed a notice "request[ing] that the Motions to Dismiss filed by Treichel and Manteiga be consolidated for the Court's consideration." Notice of Compliance (DE# 62 at 2, 2/21/18).

This matter is ripe for adjudication.

FACTS

The plaintiff is the owner of the M/Y Traveller, a sport fishing vessel. SAC at ¶ 2. Defendant Manteiga is the owner of the M/Y Bottom Line, a sport fishing vessel. Id. at ¶ 3. Defendant Treichel is a marine repair facility. Id. at ¶ 4.

On or about December 1, 2016, the M/Y Traveller and the M/Y Bottom Line were located at a marina in Dania, Florida. SAC at ¶ 7. At the time, the M/Y Bottom Line was in the custody of Treichel for repairs. Id. "When the employees of TREICHEL attempted to move the M/Y BOTTOM LINE, the controls to one of the engines did not operate properly and the M/Y BOTTOM LINE drove across the Marina and allided with the M/Y TRAVELLER, causing substantial damages." Id.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In considering a motion to dismiss brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Court must accept the non-moving party's well-pled facts as true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to that party. Caravello v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 315 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1348 (S.D. Fla. 2004) (citing United States v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 195 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc); St. Joseph's Hosp., Inc. v. Hosp. Corp. of Am., 795 F.2d 948, 953 (11th Cir. 1986)).

To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must contain factual allegations which are "enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). "When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). The issue to be decided is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but "whether the [plaintiff] is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 511 (2002) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other grounds by Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984)).

ANALYSIS

The defendants³ move to dismiss the SAC with prejudice on the ground that the damage sought by the plaintiff - the M/Y Traveller's post-repair loss of value - is not recoverable under general maritime law. Manteiga's Motion at 3. The defendants maintain that "[g]eneral maritime law has long held the principle that damages to avessel involved in a collision that are not a total loss can be measured by the costs of repairs." Id. at 5.

The plaintiff argues that it can recover for the M/Y Traveller's post-repair loss of value under general admiralty law because "[p]ost-repair loss of value is included in general admiralty law's doctrine of restitutio in integrum." Response to Manteiga's Motion at 2. Additionally, the plaintiff states that even if there is no recovery for post-repair loss of value under admiralty law, the Court should apply Florida common law because:

a. [Florida] law does not prejudice characteristic features originating in admiralty and

b. [Florida] law does not interfere with the harmony and uniformity of maritime law.

Id. (referencing factors articulated in S. Pac. Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 216 (1917)).

A. Damages under General Maritime Law

The parties do not dispute that restitutio in integrum is the legal maxim for determining damages in maritime cases involving an allision or collision. See Manteiga's Motion at 5 ("courts in admiralty customarily apply the doctrine of restitutio in integrum in collision/allision cases"); Response to Manteiga's Motion at 4 ("[r]estitutio in integrum, the oft-cited admiralty maxim, originated in Roman contract law (the remedy of restitution)."). The parties dispute, however, whether post-repair loss of value is recoverable under this doctrine.

The plaintiff cites to The Zeller⁴ in support of its argument that the maxim of restitutio in integrum "allow[s] post-repair, loss of market value to be claimed."Response to Manteiga's Motion at 5. The defendants argue that "The Zeller should be disregarded by this Court in light of having different facts . . . ." Manteiga's Reply at 9.

The Zeller involved a suit in admiralty brought by the owner of a scow to recover damages sustained by the scow when the respondent, in the process of unloading steel girders, allowed "some of the girders . . . to fall, penetrating the deck of the scow . . . ." The Zeller, 68 F. Supp. at 797. A hearing was held before a special commissioner during which the owner of the scow, "took the position . . . that under the rule of r...