govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-3_24-cv-08309-1

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
 
 
FARM CREDIT EAST, ACA, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
F/V MARKET PRICE (O.N. 1275363), in 
rem, et al., 
 
Defendants. 
 
 
 
 
 
Civil Action No. 24-8309 (RK) (JBD) 
 
MEMORANDUM ORDER 
 
 
KIRSCH, District Judge 
 
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Farm Credit East, ACA’s 
(“Plaintiff”) Amended Motion for Default Judgment , (ECF No s. 30, 30 -3, 30 -4), against 
Defendants F/V Carol Ann (O.N. 615907), F/V Major Expense (O.N. 627357), F/V Market Price 
(O.N. 1275363), and each Vessel’s engines, boilers, tackle, electronics, appurtenances, and federal 
fishing permits (respectively, Nos. 330396, 330566, 251849) (collectively, “Defendant Vessels” 
or “Defendants”) and upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Judicial Sale of the Defendant Vessels, (ECF 
No. 27). Following careful consideration of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint, ( “Compl.,” ECF No. 
1), unopposed Motions, (ECF Nos. 27, 30, 30-3, 30-4), attached affidavits, exhibits, and all other 
filings of record in this action, 1 and the applicable authority, see Commercial Instruments and 
Maritime Liens Act (“CIMLA”), 46 U.S.C. § 31301 et seq.; Supplemental Rules for Admiralty 
 
1 The voluminous record before the Court includes the Defendant Vessels’ Mortgages, Security 
Agreements, Inventories, and Abstracts of Title , (ECF Nos. 1 -3 to 1 -9; ECF No. 31 at 5–27, 89–101), 
documents showing the at -issue loan defaults , ( ECF Nos. 1 -2, 1 -10, 1 -11, 1 -12), Plaintiff’s Notices of 
Action and Arrest as published in the relevant newspapers, (ECF No. 25-1 at 5–11; ECF No. 31 at 29–33, 
86), and affidavits by Plaintiff’s attorneys, (“Duggan Aff.,” ECF No. 30-1; “Braden Aff.,” ECF No. 30-2; 
see also ECF No. 25-1), and senior loan officer, (“Somma Aff.,” ECF No. 26-2). PageID:
<pageID>
 
2 
and Maritime Claims (“Supplemental Rules”), Rules C, E; Local Admiralty and Maritime Rule 
(“LAMR”) (c)(2)–(4), (e); Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b), the Court finds as follows: 
1. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this admiralty and maritime action 
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333 . See 28 U.S.C. § 1333 (1) ( codifying district courts’ 
original, exclusive jurisdiction over “[a] ny civil case of admiralty or maritime 
jurisdiction”); 46 U.S.C. § 31325(b) –(c) (providing that district courts have original 
jurisdiction over in rem civil actions against documented vessels to enforce preferred 
mortgage liens upon default); see also U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1 (conferring federal 
court jurisdiction over “all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction”). 
2. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant Vessels given their presence 
within this District at all relevant times. (Compl. ¶¶ 3–6; ECF No. 30-3 at 1); see Depth 
Charge Marine, LTD. v. F/V C. ANN , No. 24-6336, 2025 WL 1088236, at *4 (D.N.J. 
Apr. 11, 2025) (collecting cases). 
3. The Court is “satisf[ied] . . . that due notice of the action and arrest of the property has 
been given” in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 31325(d)(1), Supplemental Rule C(4), and 
LAMR (c)(2)–(4), such that Plaintiff has satisfied the applicable notice and service 
requirements. LAMR (c)(3)(a); (Braden Aff. ¶¶ 6–9, 11–14; Duggan Aff. ¶¶ 3–4, 6).2 
 
2 “A party seeking a default judgment in an action in rem must satisfy the Judge that due notice of the action 
and arrest of the property has been given (1) by publication as required in LAMR (c)(2), . . . (2) by service 
of the complaint and warrant of arrest upon the Master or other person having custody of the property . . . 
[and] (3) [i]f the defendant property is a vessel documented under the laws of the United States, plaintiff 
must attempt to notify all persons identified as having an interest in the vessel in the United States Coast 
Guard Certificate of Ownership.” LAMR (c)(3)(a); see LAMR (c)(3)(c), (c)(4) (providing that plaintiff may 
show notice via affidavit or certificate of counsel). 
First, Plaintiff published notices of this action and Defendants’ arrests in newspapers of general circulation 
where Defendants were seized in accordance with LAMR (c)(2) , (c)(3)(a)(1), and the Order of Public 
Notice issued by the Honorable J. Brendan Day, U.S.M.J., (ECF No. 16). (ECF No. 25-1 at 5–11; ECF No. 
31 at 2 9–33, 86; see Braden Aff. ¶¶ 11 –14; ECF No. 30-3 at 8 –9; ECF No. 30 -4 ¶¶ 27–28); see also 46 
U.S.C. § 31325(d)(1) (“Actual notice of a civil action . . . to enforce a maritime lien[] must be given in the PageID:
<pageID>
 
3 
4. Defendants have failed to appear, timely answer Plaintiff’s Complaint, or timely file a 
verified statement of right or interest regarding the Complaint or Plaintiff’s preferred 
mortgages; the time for filing an answer or claim of right or interest has expired, with 
no one appearing to claim the Defendant Vessels; and the Clerk of the Court entered 
default against Defendants on December 1, 2025. (Docket Entry dated Dec. 1, 2025); 
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a); LAMR (c)(4); (see also ECF No. 18). 
5. Plaintiff’s well-pleaded Complaint allegations, which are deemed admitted on default, 
together with the ample supportive evidence of record, see supra note 1, sufficiently 
establish Defendants’ liability as a matter of law. See Comdyne I, Inc. v. Corbin , 908 
F.2d 1142, 1149 (3d Cir. 1990); Chanel, Inc. v. Gordashevsky , 558 F. Supp. 2d 532, 
536 (D.N.J. 2008). As to each Defendant Vessel, Plaintiff has adequately shown its 
valid preferred mortgages, (ECF Nos. 1-3, 1-4, 1-5),3 and the defaults thereupon, (ECF 
Nos. 1-2, 1-10, 1-11, 1-12), thus entitling Plaintiff to enforce its preferred maritime 
liens against the Defendant Vessels by foreclosing on the mortgages pursuant to 46 
 
manner directed by the court . . . .”). Second, Plaintiff effectuated service consistent with LAMR (c)(3)(a)(2) 
as evidenced by, inter alia, the Process Receipt and Return from the U.S. Marshals Service, (ECF Nos. 21–
24), Plaintiff’s detailed averments, (Braden Aff. ¶¶ 6 –9, 13–14; Duggan Aff. ¶¶ 3 –4, 6), and the parties’ 
Consent Order to extend Defendants’ time to answer the Complaint and stay the execution of the arrest 
warrants, (ECF No. 18). (See ECF No. 30-3 at 2 –3, 8; ECF No. 30 -4 ¶¶ 4, 12, 14, 26 , 28); Corporativo 
Groupo R SA de C.V. v. Marfield Ltd., 606 F. Supp. 3d 502, 516 (S.D. Tex. 2022) (granting default judgment 
in CIMLA action to enforce preferred mortgage and reasoning that “Defendants’ Response to Intervenors’ 
Motion to Intervene confirms that they received ‘actual notice’ of the civil action, as required by 46 U.S.C. 
§ 31325(d)(1)”), aff’d on other grounds , 64 F.4th 603 (5th Cir. 2023). Finally, Plaintiff has sufficiently 
shown, as per the Defendant Vessels’ Abstracts of Title recorded by the U.S. Coast Guard, (ECF No. 31 at 
6, 8–13, 15–27), that no other persons have an interest in the Defendant Vessels, nor has any such person 
appeared in this action or contacted Plaintiff, (Dugan Aff. ¶ 5; ECF No. 30 -4 ¶¶ 23–24, 28). See LAMR 
(c)(3)(a)(3), (c)(4)(b); (see also ECF Nos. 1-6, 31 at 89–91, 94–98, 100–01; Braden Aff. ¶¶ 3–4, 17). 
3 Each Defendant Vessel’s Mortgage is a preferred mortgage as defined in the CIMLA ; each covers “the 
whole” of the documented vessel and was “filed in substantial compliance” with the relevant statutory 
requirements. 46 U.S.C. § 31322(a); see id. §§ 31321(b), 31325(a); (ECF Nos. 1-3, 1-4, 1-5; Compl. ¶¶ 9–
15; ECF No. 31 at 5–27; see also ECF No. 30-4 ¶¶ 18–20). PageID:
<pageID>
 
4 
U.S.C. § 31325 and selling the Defendant Vessels pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 31326 . 
(Compl. ¶¶ 9–30; Braden Aff. ¶¶ 4, 8.)4 
6. All default judgment factors support the entry of default judgment against Defendants. 
(See ECF No. 30 -3 at 4 –6); PPG Indus. Inc v. Jiangsu Tie Mao Glass Co. , 47 F.4th 
156, 160 n.8 (3d Cir. 2022) (quoting Chamberlain v. Giampapa, 210 F.3d 154, 164 (3d 
Cir. 2000)); see also Depth Charge Marine, 2025 WL 1088236, at *7 (finding default 
judgment factors satisfied in CIMLA action).5 
7. Plaintiff has shown, through “detailed affidavits and documentary evidence,” Doe v. 
Simone, No. 12-5825, 2013 WL 3772532, at *2 –3 (D.N.J. July 17, 2013), entitlement 
as follows to sum certain damages totaling $2,588,032.20 for the foregoing legally 
 
4 Under 46 U.S.C. § 31325(b), the holder of a preferred mortgage on a maritime vessel that is in default 
may enforce the terms of that mortgage by bringing an in rem action against the vessel, and § 31326(a) in 
turn provides that “[a] vessel [may be] sold by order of a district court in a civil action in rem brought to 
enforce a preferred mortgage lien or a maritime lien.” 46 U.S.C. §§ 31325(b), 31326(a); see Bank of the W. 
v. Sailing Yacht Serendipity , 101 F. Supp. 3d 238, 248 –50, 254 –55 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (granting default 
judgment and judicial sale of defendant vessel and explaining elements of in rem claim to enforce preferred 
mortgage: plaintiff must show (1) it has a valid preferred mortgage under the CIMLA and (2) mortgagor is 
in default); Pawtucket Credit Union v. M/Y Sea Rayna , 560 F. Supp. 3d 690, 694 –95, 694 n.1 (D. Conn. 
2021) (same); Goldfish Shipping, S.A. v. HSH Nordbank AG, No. 07-3518, 2008 WL 4809410, at *4 (E.D. 
Pa. Nov. 3, 2008) (explaining judicial sale of maritime vessel in default). 
5 Three factors govern the entry of default judgment: “(1) prejudice to the plaintiff if default is denied, (2) 
whether the defendant appears to have a litigable defense, and (3) whether defendant ’s delay is due to 
culpable conduct.” Chamberlain, 210 F.3d at 164. Plaintiff satisfies all three. (See ECF No. 30-3 at 4–6.) 
“Here, t here is more prejudice to Plaintiff if default judgment is denied than there is to many other 
plaintiffs. . . . Plaintiff is prejudiced by the mere fact it has no other means to vindicate its claim, [and] the 
injury to Plaintiff is unceasing,” as Plaintiff has had to pay over $12,000 per month in storage expenses 
since the Defendant Vessels’ arrests in September and October 2025. Depth Charge Marine , 2025 WL 
1088236, at *7; (Braden Aff. ¶ 16). As to the second and third factors, Defendants’ non-appearance supports 
both that their litigable defenses are “nonexistent” and that their conduct is culpable. Depth Charge Marine, 
2025 WL 1088236, at *7 (explaining that default by defendant “provides further indicia that Defendant’s 
litigable defenses are nonexistent ”); Slover v. Live Universe, Inc. , No. 08-2645, 2009 WL 606133, at *2 
(D.N.J. Mar. 9, 2009) (“Defendant is also presumed culpable where it has failed to answer, move, or 
otherwise respond.”); Farmlind Produce, LLC v. Sickles Mkt., LLC, No. 24-3746, 2024 WL 3509488, at *6 
(D.N.J. July 23, 2024) (collecting cases that state that district courts “must . . . presume that defendant has 
no[]” meritorious defense where defendant has not appeared, answered, or otherwise defended the action). PageID:
<pageID>
 
5 
viable claim. (See ECF No. 30-4 at 10–11); LAMR (e)(1); PPG Indus. Inc, 47 F.4th at 
161; see also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920(1), 1921(a)(1). 
a. Plaintiff has adequately substantiated its damages requests for the outstanding 
mortgage indebtedness secured by the Defendant Vessels totaling 
$2,449,530.85 in principal and interest, plus continuing interest; $12,000.00 in 
U.S. Marshals’ fees for arresting the Defendant Vessels; $126,251.35 in 
substitute custodian and storage costs ($12,750.00 per month ) to National 
Maritime Services and Yank Marine6; and $250.00 in court filing fees. (Compl. 
¶¶ 24, 30; Braden Aff. ¶¶ 8, 16; Somma Aff. ¶¶ 4–5); see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920(1), 
1921(a)(1); 46 U.S.C. § 31325(a); (ECF No. 30-3 at 7; ECF No. 30-4 ¶¶ 6–10, 
18–20, 23; see also ECF No. 1-10 at 1; ECF No. 30-4 at 10–11). 
b. Plaintiff has not , however, provided legal justification for its recovery of the 
costs of publishing notices of this action and Defendants’ arrests. (ECF No. 29 
at 1 (citing Fincantieri Marine Repair LLC v. Geysir , No. 22 -410, 2023 WL 
2217272, at *13 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 4, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 
2023 WL 2213505 (D.N.J. Feb. 24, 2023); U.S. All. Fed. Credit Union v. M/V 
Kamara Fam., No. 20-1733, 2022 WL 607048, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2022), 
report and recommendation adopted , 2022 WL 603933 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 
2022))); see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920(1), 1921(a)(1).7 
 
6 Judge Day previously “deem[ed] just and reasonable” the storage and safekeeping costs charged by the 
interim and substitute custodians, and the Court sees no reason to depart from that finding here. (ECF No. 
17 ¶ 5; see ECF No. 9 at 9–13.) 
7 In the Court’s Order denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s initial motion for default judgment, the Court 
directed Plaintiff to cases explaining that such publication costs are not provided for as recoverable costs 
under the relevant authority and are not available in actions in rem even if otherwise available in a breach 
of contract action in personam. (ECF No. 29 at 1 (citing Fincantieri Marine Repair, 2023 WL 2217272, at 
*13; M/V Kamara Fam., 2022 WL 607048, at *3).) Plaintiff “still provides no case authority or argument PageID:
<pageID>
 
6 
8. It is in the best interests of the parties that the Court authorize the judicial sale of the 
Vessels and all their appurtenances, including but not limited to their federal fishing 
permits and quota, and that the Defendant Vessels be sold at a public auction conducted 
by the U.S. Marshals Service, thus allowing the Defendant Vessels to be sold free and 
clear of any liens or other encumbrances and allowing the Court to exercise some 
oversight over the sale and confirmation process. (See ECF No. 27 at 6–7, ECF No. 27-
2 ¶¶ 6–7); Supplemental Rule E(9). 
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons and other good cause shown, IT IS on this 2nd day 
of June, 2026, 
ORDERED that default judgment is GRANTED in favor of Plaintiff Farm Credit East, 
ACA and against Defendants F/V Carol Ann (O.N. 615907) and her engines, boilers, tackle, 
appurtenances, electronics, and her federal fishing permit (No. 330396), etc.; F/V Major Expense 
(O.N. 627357) and her engines, boilers, tackle, appurtenances, electronics, and her federal fishing 
permit (No. 330566), etc.; and F/V Market Price (O.N. 1275363) and her engines, boilers, tackle, 
appurtenances, electronics, and her federal fishing permit (No. 251849), etc.; and it is further 
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that judgment be, and hereby is, entered in favor of Plaintiff 
against Defendants in the amount of $2,588,032.20; and it is further 
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 30) and 
Motion for Judicial Sale (ECF No. 27) are GRANTED IN PART8; and it is further 
 
regarding the recovery of these costs.” U.S. All. Fed. Credit Union v. M/V Kamara Fam., 691 F. Supp. 3d 
646, 657 (E.D.N.Y. 2023) (cleaned up). Any cases the Court has independently found are unpersuasive as 
they grant publication costs without analyzing the applicable authority to the contrary. See Fincantieri 
Marine Repair, 2023 WL 2217272, at *13 n.24 (collecting cases). 
8 As explained, Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Default Judgment is granted in large part, except that 
Plaintiff’s request for publication costs is denied. See supra note 7. 
Plaintiff’s Motion for Judicial Sale is granted in large part, except that the Court (1) directs that in addition 
to publishing notice of the judicial sale in the Asbury Park Press, (ECF No. 27 at 5), Plaintiff SHALL also PageID:
<pageID> PageID:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight