ANGELEX, LTD., Petitioner, V

No. __-_____ In the Supreme Court of the United States ANGELEX, LTD., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI _____________ *GEORGE M. CHALOS *Counsel of Record BRITON P. SPARKMAN Chalos & Co., P.C. 55 Hamilton Avenue Oyster Bay, NY,11771 Tel: (516) 714-4300 Fax: (516) 750-9051 Email: [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner _________________________________________________ i QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, 33 U.S.C. § 1901, et seq. (“APPS”), was enacted by Congress to implement the provisions of the MARPOL treaty and annexes thereto to which the United States of America is a party. As part of APPS, Congress created an ‘after-the-fact’ statutory remedy codified at 33 U.S.C. § 1904(h), which provides that “a ship unreasonable detained or delayed by the Secretary acting under the authority of this chapter is entitled to compensation for any loss or damage suffered thereby.” The M/V ANTONIS G. PAPPADAKIS, a bulk carrier and sole income producing asset belonging to Petitioner, Angelex Ltd., was unreasonably delayed by the United States Coast Guard and/or Customs and Border Protection Agency for one hundred and sixty-five (165) days in the port of Norfolk, Virginia. The questions presented which warrant further review because of their critical legal importance are: 1. Whether the Court below erred by prematurely dismissing Angelex’s case prior to trial and full presentation of Angelex’s evidence; and 2. Whether the Court below erred by failing to apply the correct “reasonableness” standard in its consideration of what constitutes an “unreasonable delay of the vessel” as set forth in 33 U.S.C. § 1904(h). ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW In addition to petitioner Angelex Ltd., plaintiff- appellants below, the respondent is the United States of America, defendant-appellee below. CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Angelex Ltd. is a privately held company. Angelex Ltd.’s parent company is Voltela Limited. No publicly held company has 10% or greater ownership in Angelex Ltd. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED.......................................i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING...........................ii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT...........ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................vi PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI................1 CITATION OF DECISIONS BELOW.......................1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...........................1 STATUTORY PROVISIONS......................................1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE...................................5 A. Factual and Procedural Background..............5 B. The District Court of D.C. Proceedings..........9 C. The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Decision......................................................12 D. The Statutory Framework of MARPOL and APPS...................................................13 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued E. The Statutory Purpose of 33 U.S.C. § 1908(e) and 33 U.S.C. § 1904(h)................16 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT................19 I. CERTIORARI SHOULD BE GRANTED TO RESONLVE A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE D.C. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS..............................................................19 II. CERTIORARI SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE THE LOWER COURT’S DEFINITION AND APPLICATION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES “UNREASONABLE” DELAY WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON MARITIME TRANSPORTATION.......................26 A. The Inability to Post a Bond...........................27 B. The Failure to Consider the Vessel’s Mortgage or Priority of Liens......30 C. The Lower Court’s decisions improperly excuse the government’s unreasonable delay of the Vessel..............32 CONCLUSION...........................................................35 v APPENDIX Appendix A Opinion in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (November 2, 2018) ....................... App. 1 Appendix B Memorandum Opinion in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (September 28, 2017) .................. App. 21 Appendix C Order in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (September 28, 2017) .................. App. 70 Appendix D 33 U.S.C. § 1902 .......................... App. 72 33 U.S.C. § 1904 .......................... App. 85 33 U.S.C. § 1908 .......................... App. 88 46 U.S.C. § 31301 ........................ App. 91 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Angelex Ltd. v. United States, 2013 AMC 1217 (E.D. Va. 2013) …..6-8, 19, 20, 23 Angelex Ltd. v. United States, 723 F.3d 500 (4th Cir. 2013) …………...8,12, 18,21 Angelex v. United States, 123 F. Supp. 3d 66 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2015) …………………………..5, 9 Angelex v. United States, 272 F. Supp. 3d 64 (D.D.C. Sept. 28, 2017) ……………………………..1 Angelex v. United States, 907 F. 3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2018) ……………………..1 Gilchrist v. Collector of Charleston, 10 F. Cas. 355 (C.C.D.S.C. 1808) …………….34-35 In re: MS “ANGELN” GMBH & CO. KG v. Bernuth Lines Ltd., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2378 (2d Cir. 2013) ..........2 Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, 135 S. Ct. 1645 (2015) …………………………22-24 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES-Continued Page Cases The Mary A (United States of America v. Martinson), 52 F.2d 982 (E.D.N.Y. 1931) ……………..………32 Medellín v. Texas, 128 S. Ct 1346, 170 L. Ed. 2d 190 (2008) ………………………….14 Midwest Video Corp. v. FCC, 571 F.2d 1025 (8th Cir. 1978) ……………………25 Ramirez v. United States, 767 F. Supp. 1563, 1991 AMC 2462 (M.D. Fla. 1991) ………….…....32 Standard Oil Co. of Indiana v. United States 164 F. 376 (7th Cir. 1908) ………………………...20 Sumner v. Philadelphia, 23 F. Cas. 392 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1873) ……………...34 United States v. Abrogar, 459 F.3d 430 (3d Cir. 2006) …………………..14, 15 United States v. Ionia Mgmt. S.A., 555 F.3d 303 (2d Cir. 2009)……………………….14 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES-Continued Page Cases United States v. One 254 Ft. FREIGHTER, M/V ANDORIA, 570 F. Supp. 413 (E.D. La. 1983) ………………..31 Watervale Marine Co., Ltd. v. United States, 807 F.3d 325 (D.C. Cir. 2015) .............................21 Watt v. Alaska, 451 U.S. 259, 68 L. Ed. 2d 80, 101 S. Ct. 1673 (1981) ……...…22 Yenkichi Ito v. United States, 64 F.2d 73 (9th Cir. 1933), cert. denied, 289 U.S. 762, 53 S.Ct. 796, 77 L.ed.1505 (1933) ……………….15 Statutes 28 U.S.C. §1254(1)……………………………………….1 33 U.S.C. §1901...................................................i, 1, 15 33 U.S.C. §1902(a)………………………………….14-15 33 U.S.C. § 1903(c)(1)................................................15 33 U.S.C. §1904(h)………………………………..passim 33 U.S.C. §1908(e)………………2, 3, 11, 12, 18, 27, 34 46 U.S.C. §31301……………………………………1, 30 ix TABLE OF AUTHORITIES-Continued Page Rules FED R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)…………………………………...9 Miscellaneous House Report No. 96-1224 reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4849………………………………………11 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, MARPOL 73/78……......13-15 Merriam-Webster.com, available at https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/unreasonable (last visited January 30, 2019)……………………….24 U.S. Coast Guard, The Coast Guard Investigative Service, available at https://www.dco.uscg.mil/our- organization/Intelligence-CG-2/................................10 PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Angelex Ltd. respectfully petitions this Court for a Writ of Certiorari to review the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. CITATION OF DECISIONS BELOW The decision of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (Pet. App. 1-20) is reported at 907 F.3d 612. The decision of the District Court for the District of D.C. (Pet. App. 21-69) is reported at 272 F. Supp. 3d 64. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The judgment of the district court granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was entered on September 28, 2017. (Pet. App. 21-69) and was timely appealed. The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on November 2, 2018. (Pet. App. 1-20). The time to file a petition for certiorari is up to and including January 31, 2019. The jurisdiction of this Court rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). STATUTORY PROVISIONS Relevant portions of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships 33 U.S.C. § 1901, et seq., are reproduced at Pet. App. 72-90. Relevant portions of the Commercial Instruments and Maritime Lien Act, 46 U.S.C. § 31301, et seq., are reproduced at Pet. App. 91-93. 2 INTRODUCTION Angelex Ltd.’s (“Angelex”) underlying claim is statutory in nature; arises pursuant to the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (“APPS”), 33 U.S.C. § 1904(h), which calls for the review of government conduct using the traditional tort standard of “reasonableness”; and seeks damages from the United States of America (“government”), due to the excessive and unreasonable delay of its sole income producing asset, the M/V ANTONIS G. PAPPADAKIS (the “Vessel”) by an agency of the government, the United States Coast Guard (“Coast Guard”) and/or Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”). The Vessel was unreasonably delayed at Norfolk as a result of the Coast Guard and CBP intentional withholding of the Vessel’s departure clearance for one hundred and sixty-five (165) days. The delay was caused by numerous unjustified and unreasonable actions and inactions by government agents; any one of which being sufficient to make the delay and detention of the vessel unreasonable under the statute. JA278 – 284.1 Although there were numerous unreasonable demands imposed for the reinstatement of the Vessel’s departure clearance, the critical unreasonable demands for this petition, include the following: 1 References to the Joint Appendix submitted to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals are referred to as “JA.” 3 1. The imposition of nonnegotiable requirements unrelated to financial security to ensure payment of any possible fine or penalty, contrary to the requirements of 33 U.S.C. § 1908(e). JA283-284. 2. Requiring a foreign third-party -- with no equitable or ownership interest in the vessel, Kassian Maritime Navigation Agency Ltd.

Load more