Peoples Bank v. P/C Ambassador of The Lake et al

MOTION for Summary Judgment In Rem and Judgment Foreclosing Preferred Marine Mortgage

W.D. Wash.July 6, 2017

Motion for Entry of Summary Judgment In Rem and Judgment Foreclosing Preferred Marine Mortgage and Memorandum - 2:16-cv-01403-JLR - 1 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Law Office of STAN LOOSMORE, P.S. P O Box 1399 Mercer Island, WA 98040 206 622-2400 The Honorable James L. Robart IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON PEOPLES BANK, a Washington ) corporation, ) ) Plaintiff, ) IN ADMIRALTY ) and ) NO. 2:16-cv-01403-JLR ) SEATTLE MOBILE MARINE LLC a ) Washington limited liability company, ) ) Intervening Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) P/C AMBASSADOR OF THE LAKE, ) Official Number 627599, her engines, ) tackle, apparel, furniture, equipment, ) and appurtenances, In Rem, ) and SALVATORE RAGUSA and LANA ) STEWART, his wife, and their marital ) community, In Personam, ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________) Peoples Bank, plaintiff, in accordance with FRCP 56, respectfully requests that the Court enter Summary Judgment In Rem and Judgment Foreclosing MOTION FOR ENTRY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN REM AND JUDGMENT FORECLOSING PREFERRED MARINE MORTGAGE, AND MEMORANDUM NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: Friday, July 28, 2017 LCR 7(d)(3) Case 2:16-cv-01403-JLR Document 96 Filed 07/06/17 Page 1 of 11 Motion for Entry of Summary Judgment In Rem and Judgment Foreclosing Preferred Marine Mortgage and Memorandum - 2:16-cv-01403-JLR - 2 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Law Office of STAN LOOSMORE, P.S. P O Box 1399 Mercer Island, WA 98040 206 622-2400 Preferred Marine Mortgage for the reason that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact of the default in the terms of the loan that is secured by the preferred marine mortgage on the defendant vessel. This motion is based on the Declaration of Amber Olson, a vice president and the Special Assets and Credit Risk Manager of Peoples Bank, plaintiff, and the Declaration of Counsel submitted with the motion, on the information below, and on the records and files herein. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ENTRY SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN REM AND JUDGMENT FORECLOSING PREFERRED MARINE MORTGAGE I. INTRODUCTION FRCP 56 directs the court to enter summary judgment when the moving party shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That is exactly the case here. As is demonstrated below and in the declarations filed with this motion, in personam defendant Salvatore Ragusa, the owner of the defendant vessel and the mortgagor on the preferred marine mortgage on it, has admitted borrowing the money evidenced by the first promissory note, signing the preferred marine mortgage on the defendant vessel which secures performance of the terms of the promissory note, and his default in the terms of the loan which the mortgage secures. Of all of the Requests for Admission served upon him, the only one he denied was whether the performance of the second loan which plaintiff made to him is secured by the mortgage on the vessel. Because the plain language of the preferred mortgage says it is and because resolving this involves the construction of Case 2:16-cv-01403-JLR Document 96 Filed 07/06/17 Page 2 of 11 Motion for Entry of Summary Judgment In Rem and Judgment Foreclosing Preferred Marine Mortgage and Memorandum - 2:16-cv-01403-JLR - 3 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Law Office of STAN LOOSMORE, P.S. P O Box 1399 Mercer Island, WA 98040 206 622-2400 the language of the preferred marine mortgage, this can be resolved by the court as a matter of law. Finally, because Mr. Ragusa has not complied with the rules of the court concerning discovery, his affirmative defenses should be stricken. Thus, summary judgment in favor of plaintiff is appropriate. II. BACKGROUND This is a lawsuit to foreclose the preferred marine mortgage in favor of plaintiff on the vessel Ambassador of the Lake. The Complaint in this case was filed on September 2, 2016 (Dkt. No. 1). In accordance with an Order Authorizing the Clerk to issue the Warrant for Arrest, the vessel was arrested by the U. S. Marshal on September 13, 2016 (Dkt. No. 20). The summons and complaint were served on in personam defendant Salvatore Ragusa on November 8, 2016 (Dkt. No. 56). Mr. Ragusa filed his answers and affirmative defenses on October 7, 2016 (Dkt. No. 17), and his Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses on Ocotber 16, 2016 (Dkt. No. 22). On October 28, 2016, in personam defendant Salvatore Ragusa filed a Verified Statement of Right or Interest (Dkt. No. 49). On November 7, 2016, Mr. Ragusa filed a document entitled “Verified Counterclaim” (Dkt. No. 51). This pleading was stricken by the court at the hearing held on November 8, 2016 (Dkt. No. 54). Since then no counterclaims have been filed on behalf of Mr. Ragusa and the time for adding additional claims has long passed. Pacific Fiberglass, Inc. was allowed to intervene in the case on October 20, 2016 (Dkt. No. 34) but subsequently dismissed its claims against the vessel on December 5, 2016 (Dkt. No. 69). Seattle Mobile Marine LLC was allowed to intervene in the case on October 25, 2016 (Dkt. No. 40). It, too, dismissed its in rem claims on April 24, 2017 (Dkt. No. 90). Thus, Peoples Bank and Mr. Ragusa, are the only parties in this case with claims in rem. On April Case 2:16-cv-01403-JLR Document 96 Filed 07/06/17 Page 3 of 11 Motion for Entry of Summary Judgment In Rem and Judgment Foreclosing Preferred Marine Mortgage and Memorandum - 2:16-cv-01403-JLR - 4 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Law Office of STAN LOOSMORE, P.S. P O Box 1399 Mercer Island, WA 98040 206 622-2400 20, 2017, the court entered an Order of interlocutory sale (Dkt. No. 89) On May 24, 2017, the vessel was sold by the U. S. Marshal (Dkt. No. 94). Peoples Bank, plaintiff, was the successful bidder. Meanwhile, on February 28, 2017, plaintiff served Plaintiffs First Requests for Admission on in personam defendant Salvatore Ragusa. A Certificate of Services on file (Dkt. No. 95). Mr. Ragusa answered the Requests for Admission on March 30, 2017. A copy of those Answers is attached to the Declaration of Counsel submitted with this motion. Entry of the Judgments sought by this Motion will complete the in rem portion of this case. As is demonstrated below, summary judgment is appropriate because, in his answers to the Requests for Admission, Mr. Ragusa admitted default in the terms of the loan secured by the preferred marine mortgage on the defendant vessel, summary judgment is appropriate because the language of the preferred marine mortgage is unambiguous and the construction of this language is a matter of law, and summary judgment is appropriate because Mr. Ragusa has not complied with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning disclosure and, accordingly, his affirmative defenses should be stricken. III. DISCUSSION 1. Summary Judgment is appropriate because Mr. Ragusa has admitted his default in the terms of the loan. Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, demonstrates “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter Case 2:16-cv-01403-JLR Document 96 Filed 07/06/17 Page 4 of 11 Motion for Entry of Summary Judgment In Rem and Judgment Foreclosing Preferred Marine Mortgage and Memorandum - 2:16-cv-01403-JLR - 5 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Law Office of STAN LOOSMORE, P.S. P O Box 1399 Mercer Island, WA 98040 206 622-2400 of law.”1 The moving party bears the initial burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he or she is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.2 In his response to Plaintiff’s First Requests for Admission, in personam defendant Salvatore Ragusa, the owner of the defendant vessel, admitted that he borrowed money from plaintiff, admitted that he signed the first promissory note and a preferred mortgage on the defendant vessel, and admitted that he did not make the payment due on August 5, 2016 under the terms of the promissory note on time. Declaration of Counsel, Exhibit 1 at 4. In personam defendant Salvatore Ragusa also admitted that, when his dispute with Seattle Mobile Marine reached the point where Seattle Mobile Marine was asserting a maritime lien against the defendant vessel, he did not comply with the terms of the promissory note and of the Change in Terms Agreement, both of which required him to give Peoples Bank “written notice of the creditor or forfeiture proceedings and deposit[] with [Peoples Bank] monies or a surety bond for the creditor or forfeiture proceedings in an amount determined by [Peoples Bank], in its sole discretion, as being an adequate reserve or bond for the dispute.” Declaration of Counsel, Exhibit 1 at 5, Exhibit 3 at “Default, Creditor or Forfeiture Proceedings.” Either of these defaults, alone, both of which Mr. Ragusa has admitted, would be sufficient to authorize the entry of summary judgment in rem in favor of plaintiff and a judgment foreclosing the preferred marine mortgage on the defendant vessel. 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Galen v. Cty. of L.A., 477 F.3d 652, 658 (9th Cir. 2007). 2Celotex, supra at 323. Case 2:16-cv-01403-JLR Document 96 Filed 07/06/17 Page 5 of 11 Motion for Entry of Summary Judgment In Rem and Judgment Foreclosing Preferred Marine Mortgage and Memorandum - 2:16-cv-01403-JLR - 6 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Law Office of STAN LOOSMORE, P.S. P O Box 1399 Mercer Island, WA 98040 206 622-2400 2. The August 10, 2016 loan is secured by the preferred marine mortgage. Summary judgment as to contract construction is appropriate only when the construction does not depend upon the use of extrinsic evidence.3,4 The proper construction of an unambiguous contact is a question of law for the court.5 In his answers to Plaintiff’s First Request for Admission, in personam defendant Salvatore Ragusa admitted that he signed the promissory note dated August 10, 2016 however he denied that the loan evidenced by that promissory note is secured by the preferred marine mortgage on the vessel. Declaration of Counsel, Exhibit 1 at 6. But, the plain language of paragraph XVIII of the First Preferred Ship Mortgage is clear: “[i]n addition to the payment of the Note herein set forth, this Mortgage shall secure the payment of all of the other sums with interest thereon which may hereafter be borrowed or received by the Mortgagor from Mortgagee or which may be paid by the Mortgagee for the account of Mortgagor.” Declaration of Counsel, Exhibit 2 at paragraph XVIII. There is nothing ambiguous about this language and no extrinsic evidence is needed to construe it. The court should hold that amounts due under the August 10, 2016 loan are secured by the preferred marine mortgage being foreclosed. 3 Go2Net, Inc. v. C I Host, Inc., 60 P.3d 1245, (Wash Ct. App. 2003); Oliver v. Alcoa, C16- 0741-JLR (W.D.WA) (Dkt. No. 55). 4 For purposes of this Motion for Summary Judgment, plaintiff has adopted the classical distinction between “interpretation” and “construction.” “Interpretation and construction of written instruments are not the same. A rule of construction is one which either governs the effect of an ascertained intention, or points out what the court should do in the absence of express or implied intention, while a rule of interpretation is one which governs the ascertainment of the meaning of the maker of the instrument.” In re Union Trust Co., 151 N.Y.S. 246, Black’s Law Dictionary, Rev. Fourth Ed., West. 1968, at 954. 5 Dice v. City of Montesano, 128 P.3d 1253 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). Case 2:16-cv-01403-JLR Document 96 Filed 07/06/17 Page 6 of 11 Motion for Entry of Summary Judgment In Rem and Judgment Foreclosing Preferred Marine Mortgage and Memorandum - 2:16-cv-01403-JLR - 7 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Law Office of STAN LOOSMORE, P.S. P O Box 1399 Mercer Island, WA 98040 206 622-2400 3. Because the in personam defendants have failed to comply with the rules for disclosure, their affirmative defenses should be stricken. On October 10, 2016, “Defendants” filed “Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses” (Dkt. No. 17). On October 16, 2016, “Defendants” filed their “Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses” (Dkt. No. 22). In this, “Defendants” asserted four Affirmative Defenses. The first of these was an assertion that defendant had not been served. In personam defendant Salvatore Ragusa was served with a Summons and a copy of the Complaint on November 8, 2016. The Affidavit of Service is on file (Dkt. No. 56). Defendants have not filed a motion or taken any other steps to assert any defect in the personal service on Mr. Ragusa and, indeed, there can be none. In affirmative defenses 2 and 3, defendant asserts that plaintiff’s claim was filed to “harass” and that it is “barred by the doctrine of unclean hands”. On December 2, 2016 defendants filed “FRCP 26 (a)(1) INITIAL DISCLOSURES DEFENDANTS, SAL RAGUSA LANA STEWART” (Dkt. No. 67). This filing consists of 43 pages, including the initial pleading and copies of documents relating to damage to and repairs of the defendant vessel. There is absolutely nothing in these 43 pages that relates in any way to the assertion, or even so much as implies, that the Complaint in this case was filed to “harass” or than any conduct of plaintiff was of any question, much less leading to “unclean hands.” In his answer to Plaintiff’s Request for Admission Number 20, in personam defendant Ragusa admitted that “the documents attached to ‘Defendants Ragusa & Stewart FRCP 26 (a)(1) Disclosures’ filed on December 2, 2016, are all of the documents in your possession that concern or in any way relate to the lawsuit”. Declaration of Counsel, Exhibit 1 at 6. Case 2:16-cv-01403-JLR Document 96 Filed 07/06/17 Page 7 of 11 Motion for Entry of Summary Judgment In Rem and Judgment Foreclosing Preferred Marine Mortgage and Memorandum - 2:16-cv-01403-JLR - 8 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Law Office of STAN LOOSMORE, P.S. P O Box 1399 Mercer Island, WA 98040 206 622-2400 In February, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California was faced with a situation similar to this. Focusing on the instant action, defendant filed its answer enumerating thirty-eight affirmative defenses, most of which are typical boilerplate and many having nothing to do with this case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b) provides that: “In responding to a pleading a party must (A) state in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it….” While a defendant is entitled to and should allege any and all matters in “avoidance” or as “affirmative defenses”, these must have some bearing on the claims alleged: they are not to be a laundry list of every possible defense or avoidance the defendant may have to any action whatsoever. It is not the plaintiff’s responsibility to figure out from these many defenses which one the defendant may choose to use to launch its assault on plaintiff’s case. Furthermore, defendant is obligated under Federal Rule of Procedure 26(a)(1)(A) to provide initial disclosures including evidence that it “may use to support its claims and defenses”. Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii). According to plaintiff’s submission filed February 21, 2011, no such disclosures have been made. If that is the case, either defendant has failed to timely produced a disclosures “reasonably available to it” as required by subparagraph (E) or it has asserted defenses for which it had no basis in violation of Rule 11(b). Sanctions may be justified in either case.6 FRCP 37(c)(1) address the failure of a party to disclose under FRCP 26(a). One of the several things a court may do is to “strike pleading in whole or in part”.7 Because the in personam defendants have completely failed to disclose any documents relating in any way to their affirmative defenses of harassment and unclean hands, striking those affirmative defenses would seem wholly appropriate and plaintiff respectfully requests that the court do just that. The fourth and last affirmative defense simply asks for leave to assert other affirmative defenses at some later date. The time for doing so has long passed and no additional defenses have been asserted. 6 APL CO. PTE. LTD. v. VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE COMPANY. C-09-5641-MHP (N.D.CA) (Dkt. No. 68). 7 FRCP 37(b)(2)(A)(iii) Case 2:16-cv-01403-JLR Document 96 Filed 07/06/17 Page 8 of 11 Motion for Entry of Summary Judgment In Rem and Judgment Foreclosing Preferred Marine Mortgage and Memorandum - 2:16-cv-01403-JLR - 9 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Law Office of STAN LOOSMORE, P.S. P O Box 1399 Mercer Island, WA 98040 206 622-2400 4. Summary Judgment and Judgment Foreclosing Preferred Marine Mortgage. As is set out in the Affidavit of Amber Olson filed with this motion, as of June 28, 2017, there was a total of $154,730.27 in principle, interest accrued and unpaid, and late fees due on the two loans which are secured by the preferred marine mortgage on the defendant vessel. The Complaint alleges and in personam defendant Ragusa admitted that, at the default rate, interest accrues at $38.80 per day. Declaration of Counsel at 2. Based upon this and on the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the court enter summary judgment in rem in favor of plaintiff awarding recovery of the amounts due from the defendant vessel as requested in the Complaint. Plaintiff has incurred expenses of custody and attorneys' fees and costs in connection with the arrest and custody of, and insurance on, the defendant vessel. In accordance with the Order which appointed Dock Street Custodial (Dkt. No. 9), a Motion for Approval of Administrative Expenses will be filed after all of the costs of custody are known. In addition, the Complaint alleges that the defendants have agreed to pay the costs of collection incurred by plaintiff, including attorneys' fees and legal expenses and costs. Once the vessel is sold, a Motion for an Order Approving Attorneys' Fees and Costs will be filed. Pending the granting of those motions, it is respectfully requested that the judgment and Order sought by this motion include administrative expenses and attorneys' fees and costs to the extent subsequently approved. For the reasons set out above, it is respectfully requested that the court grant the Motion and enter Summary Judgment In Rem and a Judgment Case 2:16-cv-01403-JLR Document 96 Filed 07/06/17 Page 9 of 11 1 0 1 1 I 2 1 3 T4 1 5 t 6 I 7 1 8 1 9 2 7 24 Foreclosing Preferred Marine Mortgage. A proposed Judgment has been filed. Respectfullv submitted this 6th day of July, 2Ol7 1lslt7 Diane M. Mevers. WSBA #4O7 Kellen Andrew Hade, WSBA #44535 Pier 70,2801 Alaskan W.y, Ste. 300 Seatt le, WA 9812I-LI2B (206]' 624-8300 E-mail: diane.meyer@millernash.com kellen. had@millernash. com Attorneys for plaintiff and Stan Loosmore, WSBA #6011 Post Office Box 1399 Mercer Island, WA 98040 (2061 622-2400 E-mail: stan@loosmore.com Attorney for plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that, on July 6, 2Ol7,I electronically filed the foregoing along with the the Declaration of Amber Olson in Support of Motion for Entry of Summary Judgment and Judgment Foreclosing Preferred Marine Mortgage, the Declaration of Counsel in Support of Motion for Entry of Summary Judgment and Judgment Foreclosing Preferred Marine Mortgage and a proposed Summary Judgment In Rem and Judgment Foreclosing Preferred Marine Mortgage, with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: Motion for Entry of Summary Judgment In Rem and Judgment Foreclosing Preferred Marine Mortgage and Memorandum - 2 :16 -cv -O 1403 -JLR - 10 - Law Olfice ol' STAN l -oosMoRri , P.S. P O Box 1399 Mercer ls land, WA 98040 206 622-2400 MILLER NASH GRAHAM Case 2:16-cv-01403-JLR Document 96 Filed 07/06/17 Page 10 of 11 1 2 3 + 5 6 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 t 4 1 5 1 6 t 7 1 8 I 9 20 2 I 22 23 24 25 MILLER NASH GRAHAM & DUNN I,Ip Diane M. Meyers, WSBA #40729 Kellen Andrew Hade, WSBA #44535 Pier TO,2SOI Alaskan W.y, Ste. 300 Seattle, WA 98721-1128 (206) 624-8300 E-mail: diane.meyer@millernash.com kellen. had@millernash. com Attorneys for plaintiff NIELSEN SHIELDS. PLLC Nathan J. Beard, WSBA #45632 1000 Second Ave. Suite 1950 Seatt le, WA 98104 (206\ 728-r3OO E-mail: njb@nielsenshields.com Attorneys for Intervenor Seattle Mobile Marine Jeff E. Jared, WSBA #23961 830 Kirkland Way #2O3 Kirkland, WA 98033 (42s1828-454s E-mail: jef!ared3@gmail.com Attorney for Defendants Michael E. Vaughn, CB #7966I Attorney for Defendants 17011 Beach Blvd. 9tt 'Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92647 (s62) 5e2-93s0 E-mail: mike@vaughnlawoffice.com Attorney for Defendants Stan Loosmore 254- 16005-6p Motion for Entry of Summary Judgment In Rem and Judgment Foreclosing Law ollice of Preferred Marine Mortgage and Memorandum SfAN [.(x)sMoRti. P.S. - 2 ; 1 6 - c v - o 1 4 o 3 - J L R - l l - P o B o x l 3 9 9 Mercer Is land. WA 98040 206 622-2400 Case 2:16-cv-01403-JLR Document 96 Filed 07/06/17 Page 11 of 11 Summary Judgment In Rem and Judgment Foreclosing Preferred Marine Mortgage - 2:16-cv-01403-JLR - - 1 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Law Office of STAN LOOSMORE, P.S. P O Box 1399 Mercer Island, WA 98040 206 622-2400 The Honorable James L. Robart IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON PEOPLES BANK, a Washington ) corporation, ) ) Plaintiff, ) IN ADMIRALTY ) and ) NO. 2:16-cv-01403-JLR ) SEATTLE MOBILE MARINE LLC a ) Washington limited liability company, ) ) Intervening Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) P/C AMBASSADOR OF THE LAKE, ) Official Number 627599, her engines, ) tackle, apparel, furniture, equipment, ) and appurtenances, In Rem, ) and SALVATORE RAGUSA and LANA ) STEWART, his wife, and their marital ) community, In Personam, ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________) THIS MATTER came on regularly upon the motion of plaintiff, and the Court, having considered the Motion and accompanying Memorandum, the Declaration of [Proposed] SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN REM AND JUDGMENT FORECLOSING PREFERRED MARINE MORTGAGE Case 2:16-cv-01403-JLR Document 96-1 Filed 07/06/17 Page 1 of 4 Summary Judgment In Rem and Judgment Foreclosing Preferred Marine Mortgage - 2:16-cv-01403-JLR - - 2 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Law Office of STAN LOOSMORE, P.S. P O Box 1399 Mercer Island, WA 98040 206 622-2400 Amber Olson and the Declaration of Counsel and its exhibits submitted with the motion and the records and files herein, and the Court having previously determined that Plaintiff's claim under its preferred marine mortgage is superior to that of any other claimant in rem, now finds that plaintiff is entitled to Judgment In Rem against the defendant vessel, Ambassador of the Lake, for the reason that there is no genuine issue of material fact in this case, and finds that plaintiff is entitled to a Judgment Foreclosing the Preferred Marine Mortgage on the defendant vessel. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the preferred marine mortgage on the Ambassador of the Lake, Official Number 627599, her engines, tackle, apparel, furniture and equipment, in favor of Peoples Bank, is foreclosed; and it is further ORDERED that Peoples Bank shall have judgment against the Ambassador of the Lake, Official Number 627599, her engines, tackle, apparel, furniture and equipment In Rem, for $154,730.27, plus interest at the rate of $38.80 per day from June 28, 2017 through the date of entry of this judgment, plus administrative expenses and attorneys' fees and costs as subsequently approved by the Court; and it is further ORDERED that the judgment granted shall bear interest at the federal rate from the date of granting of this judgment until paid; and it is further ORDERED that once plaintiff has sold the defendant vessel, the proceeds of the sale by plaintiff of the defendant vessel, net of all costs of repair, // // Case 2:16-cv-01403-JLR Document 96-1 Filed 07/06/17 Page 2 of 4 5 6 7 ca-re, custody and sale; shall be credited against the judgment granted herein. DATED this _ day of 2017. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Presented by: MILLER NASH GRAHAM & DUNN T,Ip 9 1 0 l . ) t 4 N b{etr{< & r-ztil*'-n^*rzbfT Diane M. Meyers, WSBA #40729 Kellen Andrew Hade, WSBA #44535 Pier 70,2BOI Alaskan W"y, Ste. 300 Seatt le, WA 98l2l- l l2B (2061 624-8300 E-mail: diane.meyer@millernash.com kellen. had@)millernash. com Attorneys for plaintiff and 1 6 t 7 1 8 1 9 20 2 I 2 2 23 24 25 STAN LOOSMORE. Stan Loosmore, WSBA #6011 Post Office Box 1399 Mercer Island, WA 98040 (2061 622-2400 E-mail: stan@loosmore.com Attorney for plaintiff Summary Judgment In Remand Judgment Mar ine Mortgage - 2:16-cv-01403-JLR - Foreclosing Preferred Law Offlce of Sr 'AN I-oosN4oRl i . I ) .S. P O Box 1399 Merccr Is land. WA 98040 206 622-2400 Case 2:16-cv-01403-JLR Document 96-1 Filed 07/06/17 Page 3 of 4 Summary Judgment In Rem and Judgment Foreclosing Preferred Marine Mortgage - 2:16-cv-01403-JLR - - 4 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Law Office of STAN LOOSMORE, P.S. P O Box 1399 Mercer Island, WA 98040 206 622-2400 Copy received, approved as to form, notice of presentation waived: NIELSEN SHIELDS, PLLC ________________________________ Nathan J. Beard, WSBA #45632 1000 Second Ave. Suite 1950 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 728-1300 E-mail: njb@nielsenshields.com Attorneys for Intervenor Seattle Mobile Marine ________________________________ Jeff E. Jared, WSBA #23961 830 Kirkland Way #203 Kirkland, WA 98033 (425) 828-4545 E-mail: jeffjared3@gmail.com Attorney for Defendants ________________________________ Michael E. Vaughn, CB #79661 Attorney for Defendants 17011 Beach Blvd. 9th Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92647 (562) 592-9350 E-mail: mike@vaughnlawoffice.com 255-16005-1p Case 2:16-cv-01403-JLR Document 96-1 Filed 07/06/17 Page 4 of 4