United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Corpus Christi Division
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO
JANICE ELLINGTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Energy Services Omega LLC (Omega) filed a motion to intervene
(D.E.39). After considering the motion, the response, reply,
and the evidence, Omega's motion to intervene is DENIED
October 2016 Gulf Marine Fabricators, LP (Gulf Marine) filed
suit in rem against the ATP Innovator and in
personam against the remaining defendants to recover
monies due for services to the ATP Innovator at layberth.
Gulf Marine obtained a warrant for the arrest of the ATP
Innovator and requests its sale.
challenged the status of the ATP Innovator as a vessel. The
undersigned found that the ATP Innovator is not a vessel and
recommended that the motion to vacate the arrest be granted
by Memorandum and Recommendation dated December 14, 2016.
Gulf Marine objected to the recommendation. Following a
hearing before the District Court, a decision on the merits
of the motion to vacate has been stayed for at least sixty
(60) days so that the parties can conduct jurisdictional
discovery (D.E. 55).
seeks to intervene in rem to protect its recently
acquired mortgage secured by the ATP Innovator from Gulf
Marine's claims. Omega also seeks to protect its rights
under the Louisiana Oil Well Lien Act which derive from a
suit filed in the Eastern District of Louisiana, Docket No.
2:13-cv-04985 against ATP Infrastructure Partners, LP. That
case was administratively closed in July 2014 pending the
resolution of ATP Oil & Gas Corporation's bankruptcy.
Omega also filed an adversary suit in the bankruptcy
proceedings, Cause No. 4:14-3301, and a separate suit in the
District Court of San Patricio County that was removed to the
District Court in the Southern District of Texas, Cause No.
2:14-CV-448. The District Court dismissed Cause No.
2:14-CV-448 in April 2015 on first to file grounds in favor
of suit in the Eastern District of Louisiana. The Bankruptcy
Court similarly dismissed the adversary proceeding in March
Marine did not respond to the motion in intervention.
Defendants Amerindo Services Ltd. and Blue Sky Langsta Ltd.
oppose Omega's intervention on multiple grounds: 1) the
in rem claim is procedurally deficient because it is
not verified, 2) Omega has not provided evidence that it is
the real party in interest to assert its mortgage, 3) if the
ATP Innovator is determined not to be a vessel no preferred
maritime mortgage exists, and 4) Omega's Louisiana lien
claims against ATP Oil & Gas should not be adjudicated in
this proceeding because the facts and law are different and
will delay and increase the costs of the current litigation
(D.E. 45). After Amerindo and Blue Sky pointed out that
Omega's Complaint in Intervention was not verified, Omega
cured its procedural defect by filing a proposed verified
complaint in intervention (D.E. 46-2) with its reply.
Intervention as of Right
provides for intervention as set out below:
Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must
permit anyone to intervene who:
(1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal
(2) claims an interest relating to the property or
transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so
situated that disposing of the action may as a practical
matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect
its interest, ...