Key Bank v. Southern Comfort

PlaintiffiAppellant Key Bank appeals an in personam judgment rendered by the district court. The district court entered judgment against Key Bank for wages owed Interve-nor/Appellee Branda while he was employed by the SOUTHERN COMFORT (“the Ship”), upon which Key Bank had foreclosed and which Key Bank had subsequently purchased on a credit bid. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

I

We review the district court’s conclusions of law de novo. B.P. North America Trading, Inc. v. Vessel PANAMAX NOVA 784 F.2d 975, 977 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 849 , 107 S.Ct. 175 , 93 L.Ed.2d 111 (1986). The determination of timeliness on an application to intervene is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Yniguez v. Arizona, 939 F.2d 727, 730 (9th Cir.1991).

II

Key Bank relies on 46 U.S.C. § 10602 (a) in arguing that Branda’s claim is time barred. Section 10602(a) reads as follows:

(Emphasis added.) The district court concluded that Branda’s claim was not time barred despite the statute because Branda had filed a claim with the Coast Guard within the designated time period. Key Bank argues that filing a claim with the Coast Guard does not constitute an “action”…