The Port of Stockton v. Western Bulk Carrier Ks Western Bulk Carriers (Seattle) Inc.

Good Law
371 F.3d 1119·2004 WL 1326297·2004 A.M.C. 1544·58 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1046·2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 11676
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 15, 200402-16221California1,370 words

Opinion

Opinion

O'Scannlain, J.

We must decide whether a party who failed properly to seek attorneys’ fees in one action may bring a separate claim for them in another.

I

On January 27, 1997, the MTV AKTEA, a ship chartered by Western Bulk Carriers (“WBC”) to carry sulfur, ran aground on a shoal in a deep water ship channel shortly after weighing anchor from the Port of Stockton (“the Port”). Once freed from the bottom of the waterway, excess sedimentary deposits required the ship to return to the Port and remain docked for 45 days while the channel was dredged. The delay allegedly cost WBC several hundred thousand dollars, and so on December 24, 1997, it filed multiple claims against the Port in the Eastern District of California, many of them arising from the “Port Tariff,” or berthing contract between the parties.

In its complaint, WBC sought additional compensation pursuant to Item 48 of the Tariff, which states that “the prevailing party in [an action on the Tariff] shall be entitled to recover of its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.” The Port, however, declined to file an analogous counterclaim for its potential costs and fees, and soon after, each party represented to the court that it would not…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.