Barnet Marine Inc. v. Laurel D Shipping LLC

Background

Under a July 9, 2020 charter agreement, Laurel D Shipping LLC, now known as Laurel Shipping LLC, chartered a commercial motor tanker vessel from Barnet Marine Inc. for a voyage that included a stop in Hong Kong. The vessel arrived there on August 6, 2020, but members of its crew were quarantined after testing positive for COVID-19. The vessel did not receive free pratique—the required permission to enter and conduct normal port operations—until September 7, 2020.

Barnet Marine first submitted a demurrage claim for $97,500, using September 7 as the relevant notice date. It later submitted what it called an amended demurrage claim for $573,437.55, using August 6 instead. Laurel Shipping objected to both claims.

Barnet Marine filed this lawsuit alleging one breach-of-contract claim. It alleged that Laurel Shipping owed demurrage under the charter agreement and sought either amount as an alternative damages calculation. Barnet Marine also sought a maritime attachment under Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions.

On July 29, 2022, the court granted Laurel Shipping’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings concerning the amended demurrage claim and denied Laurel Shipping’s request to vacate the attachment. The court concluded that the amended demurrage claim was barred by the charter party’s time-bar provision. Barnet Marine then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) to certify that ruling as a final judgment for immediate appeal.

Rule 54(b) Standard

Rule 54(b) permits a court to enter a partial final judgment for appeal when there are multiple claims or parties, at least one claim or a party’s rights and liabilities have been finally determined, and the court expressly finds that there is no just reason to delay the appeal.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Rule 54(b) could not apply because the case involved one claim against one defendant. Barnet Marine’s two written demurrage demands did not create two separate claims. They arose from the same alleged breach, involved the same underlying facts, and represented alternative ways to calculate damages. Barnet Marine could recover on only one of the alternatives.

The court also explained that its earlier use of the word “claim” referred to the demurrage demands submitted to Laurel Shipping, not to separate causes of action in the lawsuit. The maritime attachment likewise was not a separate claim; it was a remedy.

Because the breach-of-contract claim had not been fully resolved—including whether Laurel Shipping breached the contract and what damages, if any, were owed—the court determined that the requirements for Rule 54(b) certification were not met.

Disposition

The court denied Barnet Marine’s motion to certify the July 29, 2022 ruling for appeal under Rule 54(b). The clerk was directed to terminate the motion. The parties were ordered to submit a joint letter about next steps, settlement discussions, and possible mediation or a settlement conference. Barnet Marine was also ordered to submit a proposed amended attachment order limiting the maritime attachment to $97,500.