United States v. Patriot Marine, LLC

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PATRIOT MARINE, LLC, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 21-CV-10243-AK

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

April 6, 2023

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

A KELLEY, D.J.

This action arises from Defendant Patriot Marine, LLC's (“Patriot Marine”), oil discharge in the waters of Great Harbor, located off the coast of Woods Hole Massachusetts, in January 2018. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the “Commonwealth”) and the United States brought separate actions against Patriot Marine arising out of the oil discharge, respectively 21-CV-11241 (D. Mass. July 30, 2021) and 21-CV-10243 (D. Mass. February 12, 2021). The Commonwealth brought claims for declaratory judgment pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act (“OPA”), 33 U.S.C. Section 2702(a), (Count I) and the Massachusetts Oil and Hazardous Material Release Prevention and Response Act, Mass. Gen. L. Chapter 21E, Section 5 (Count II). [Dkt. 1]. The United States brought two claims under the OPA, 33 U.S.C. Section 2701 (Counts I, II,), and it also sought declaratory judgment under the OPA, 33 U.S.C. Section 2717 (Count III). [Dkt. 1 at 1-2]. The Court consolidated the separate actions.

On September 13, 2022, this Court granted declaratory judgment [Dkt. 35] for the United States and the Commonwealth, determining that Patriot Marine, as the party responsible for the oil discharge, was liable under the OPA, 33 U.S.C. Sections 2702(a), 2705, 2715, and 2717(f)(2), for removal costs [id. ¶ 1] and for damages for any injury, destruction, or loss of use of natural resources, including the costs of assessing such damages [id. ¶ 2]. The Court also concluded that Patriot Marine was liable under the Massachusetts Oil and Hazardous Material Release Prevention and Response Act, Mass. Gen. L. Chapter 21E, Section 5 [id. ¶ 3].

The Court's Order left three disputes unresolved: (1) the quantum of removal costs owed to the United States; (2) the quantum of damages for injury to natural resources and the costs of assessing such injury resulting from the oil spill; and (3) whether the limits of liability set forth in the OPA, 33 U.S.C. Section 2704, apply. [Id. ¶ 8]. The United States now moves for summary judgment to resolve whether Patriot Marine may limit its liability under the OPA. [Id. ¶ 8]. For the following reasons, the United States' motion for partial summary judgment [Dkt. 54] is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

The parties submitted a joint stipulation of facts [Dkt. 53], some of which Patriot Marine now attempts to dispute. [See Dkt. 53 ¶¶ 6-7; Dkt. 61 ¶¶ 6-7, 10]; see Forcier v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 469 F.3d 178, 186 (1st Cir. 2006) (stating that “[i]n the absence of fraud, misrepresentation, manifest injustice, or other exceptional circumstances[,] . . . a party who agrees to submit a case on a particular set of stipulated facts cannot later be heard to complain that [it] misjudged what evidence might be beneficial to [its] cause”). The Court notes such disputes below but recounts the facts and draws all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Patriot Marine. See Hodgens v. General Dynamics Corp., 144 F.3d 151, 156 (1st Cir. 1998).

Patriot Marine is a limited liability company that engages in construction and dredging. [Dkt. 53 ¶ 1]. On January 20, 2018, Patriot Marine's ship, M/V OCEAN KING, ran aground in Saquatucket Harbor in Harwich, Massachusetts, damaging the vessel's hull. [Id. ¶¶ 6-7]. Although Patriot Marine stipulated to the fact that the M/V OCEAN KING did run aground [Dkt. 53 ¶ 6], it now disputes that fact [Dkt. 61 ¶¶ 7, 8, 10]. Instead, Patriot Marine described the event as “bumping on sand,” or a “little shudder,” “not a grounding.” [Dkt. 61 ¶ 7]. However, Patriot Marine agrees that as a result of the “little shudder,” the M/V OCEAN KING began taking on water causing the fluid-which contained oil-in the bilges to rise. [Dkt. 54-5 ¶ 8; Dkt. 61 ¶¶ 8-9]. The M/V OCEAN KING crew informed the owner that the vessel “needed to go to the shipyard for repairs.” [Dkt. 54-17 at 7]. The event was not reported to the United States Coast Guard (“Coast Guard”) until January 22, 2018. [Dkt. 53 ¶ 8].

On January 20, 2018, the M/V OCEAN KING transited to Woods Hole and moored at the town dock. [Dkt. 53 ¶ 9]. Woods Hole is located at Great Harbor, Massachusetts, which allows access to the Atlantic Ocean and is part of the United States navigable waters. [Id. ¶¶ 1011]. A Woods Hole resident, Daniel Cojanu, (“Cojanu”) was taking a walk in Great Harbor on the morning of January 21, 2018. [Dkt. 61 ¶¶ 15-18]. Although the parties dispute whether Cojanu knew that the “dirty. . . black” liquid he saw in the water was oil, it is undisputed that he took pictures of oiled vegetation that had accumulated at the base of a boat ramp and a sheen covering the surface of the water. [Id. ¶¶ 15-18]. Two crew members of the M/V OCEAN KING also noticed a “discoloration” in the water around the ship. [Dkt. 54-5 ¶¶ 11-12, Dkt. 54-4 ¶ 17, Dkt. 61 ¶ 19]. On January 21, 2018, M/V OCEAN KING departed Woods Hole at approximately 11:00 A.M. [Dkt. 53 ¶ 12]. After the M/V OCEAN KING's departure, an unnamed private citizen reported a 100-yard by 100-yard sheen that smelled of motor oil in Great Harbor at 1:14 P.M. [Dkt. 54-8]. Cojanu also returned to the scene at 1:45 P.M. to take another picture of the oil spill, depicting black oil on the shoreline rocks. [Dkt. 61 ¶ 23].

Since there was no responsible party on scene, Cape Waterman Inc., d/b/a Sea Tow Cape and Islands (“Sea Tow”), commenced clean-up operations from January 21, 2018, to February 15, 2018. [Dkt. 61 ¶¶ 25-26]. The clean-up generated four containers of oily waste material. [Dkt. 54-1 ¶ 37; Dkt. 61 ¶¶ 36-37]. The oil spill impacted two linear miles of shoreline within Great Harbor. [Dkt. 61 ¶ 27].

On January 22, 2018, the Coast Guard issued a notice to Patriot Marine advising it that it may be responsible for the oil spill at Great Harbor in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. [Dkt. 53 ¶ 13; Dkt. 61 ¶ 29]. The M/V OCEAN KING arrived at Goodison Shipyard in Rhode Island on January 22, 2018, where it awaited haul out. [Dkt. 53 ¶ 14]. While the M/V OCEAN KING was at Goodison Shipyard, the Coast Guard inspected the ship, and found a hole in its hull. [Dkt. 53 ¶¶ 15-16; Dkt. 61 ¶ 31]. On January 31, 2018, the Coast Guard issued a Notice of Designation to Patriot Marine, stating that the M/V OCEAN KING was the source of the oil discharge in Great Harbor, providing that Patriot Marine could deny that designation within 5 days of receipt. [Dkt. 53 ¶ 17; Dkt. 54-15].^[1] Patriot Marine did not deny the designation. [Dkt. 61 ¶ 34].

On February 9, 2018, the Coast Guard issued an Administrative Order directing Patriot Marine to submit a written disposal plan to dispose of waste materials associated with the oil spill by February 10, 2018. [Dkt. 53 ¶ 18; Dkt. 54-18]. Patriot Marine did not take any actions or submit a disposal plan, rather it denied responsibility for the spill and encouraged the Coast Guard to “do the necessary [work] without delay should there truly be an imminent and substantial threat to the public health or welfare or the environment.” [Dkt. 54-1 ¶ 40; Dkt. 61 ¶ 40]. The Coast Guard sent a Notice of Federal Assumption, dated February 12, 2018, stating that Patriot Marine's actions to abate or remove the oil were “unsatisfactory.” [Dkt. 53 ¶ 19; Dkt. 541 ¶ 43; Dkt. 61 ¶ 43]. On February 14, 2018, Patriot Marine e-mailed the Coast Guard stating that “it appears more likely than not that an unknown, accidental discharge of bilge water occurred during the overnight/early hours of [January 21, 2018] after the vessel sought shelter from heavy weather and docked at Woods Hole Great Harbor.” [Dkt. 53 ¶ 20; Dkt. 54-1 ¶ 45; Dkt. 61 ¶ 45].

A Coast Guard Hearing Officer sent Patriot Marine a Preliminary Assessment Letter on October 22, 2018, stating that it appeared to be liable for the following violations of federal law: (1) the discharge of oil or a hazardous substance into the navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shoreline, or contiguous zone, 33 U.S.C. Sections 1321(b)(2), (3), failure to immediately notify the nearest Coast Guard office of a hazardous condition, 33 C.F.R. Section 160.216. [Dkt. 54-22 at 3; Dkt. 61 ¶ 48]. Patriot Marine responded on February 26, 2019, stating that although the M/V OCEAN KING's crew observed a “discoloration” in the water, it did not observe any petroleum oil or sheen, and that therefore, the grounding had not resulted in a “hazardous condition” to report to the Coast Guard. [Dkt 54-23; Dkt. 53 ¶ 24; Dkt. 54-1 ¶ 51; Dkt. 61 ¶¶ 50-51].

The Coast Guard Hearing Officer sent Patriot Marine a Final Determination letter on March 13, 2019, stating that it violated both counts, and specifically that Patriot Marine was required to report “bump and go” groundings regardless of whether there was obvious damage to the vessel. [Dkt. 54-17], see 33 C.F.R. § 160.216. The Coast Guard ordered Patriot Marine to pay a fine, which it paid instead of pursuing an appeal. [Dkt. 53 ¶ 26; Dkt. 61 ¶ 57].

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of summary judgment is to “pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.” Mesnick v. Gen. Elec Co., 950 F.2d 816, 822 (1^st Cir. 1991) (citing Garside v. Osco Drug, Inc., 895 F.2d 46, 50 (1^st Cir. 1990)). Summary judgment may be granted when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, presents no “genuine issue of material fact,” and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Paul v. Murphy, 948 F.3d 42, 49 (1^st Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). The Court must consider (1) whether a factual dispute exists; (2)...