Clewis v. M/V Invader — Court Denies Plaintiff’s Bid to Make His Company the Vessel’s Substitute Custodian

Reported / Citable

Background

Kenneth Aaron Clewis moved to appoint his company, PCF Land & Water LLC, as substitute custodian of the arrested M/V Invader. Clewis had previously served as the vessel’s captain and proposed charging a flat daily custodial rate of $3,500.

The vessel’s owner had not consented to the proposed appointment, and neither Clewis nor PCF Land & Water was a boatyard. Clewis identified the ports of Gulfport, Mississippi, or Panama City, Florida, as possible “safe berth facilities,” but did not specify a particular facility where the vessel would be stored. Both ports also were outside the court’s jurisdiction.

The Court’s Holding

The court denied Clewis’s motion. It noted that the limited case law cited in the opinion had permitted plaintiffs to act as substitute custodians when the vessel owner consented in writing or when the proposed custodian was a boatyard. Neither circumstance was present here.

The court also found Clewis’s storage proposal insufficiently specific and was troubled by the proposed $3,500 daily charge. The marshal had reported that guarding the vessel without a substitute custodian would cost between $800 and $1,000 per day, while Clewis’s proposed charges would exceed his alleged unpaid wages and late-payment penalties within 12 days. The court ordered the marshal to remain custodian while the vessel is under arrest.

Key Takeaways

• The court declined to appoint the plaintiff’s company because the owner had not consented, the company was not a boatyard, and other case-specific concerns weighed against the request.
• Identifying two ports without naming a particular storage facility did not give the court enough information about where the vessel would be kept.
• The court viewed the proposed $3,500 daily rate as troubling because it substantially exceeded the marshal’s estimated daily guarding cost and would surpass Clewis’s alleged claim within 12 days.

Why It Matters

The order illustrates the factual detail a court may examine when a plaintiff asks to place an arrested vessel in the custody of the plaintiff or an affiliated company. Here, the absence of owner consent, the proposed custodian’s status, the vague and out-of-jurisdiction storage locations, and the proposed daily fee collectively led the court to deny the particular request.

The ruling leaves the M/V Invader in the marshal’s custody during the arrest rather than transferring custody to Clewis’s company.