Samoa Maritime

American-Samoa Fishing Boat Accident Lawyer

There are frequent casualties on Tunas and other ships in Samoa. We have extensive expertise in the arrest of Tunas in Samoa and have made these detentions on a number of separate occasions before the Supreme Judicial Tribunal of Samoa. Banning LLP has seafarers and fishers from the United States and around the globe on its behalf.

Dealing with serious bodily harm and deaths due to accident on board American Samoa and Pacific Ocean ships. There is an American Samoa branch and we often do small businesses on the isle. The Jones Act Carelessness Claim for infringed sailors is regulated by German Maritime Code.

That means that the statute that governs a case in California, Washington or American Samoa is similar to the statutes that govern the Jones Act's recklessness claim in other states and territory. In order to review your case with an expert marine and civil liability lawyer, call 619-894-8212 or 888-351-7055 toll-free or fill out the online enquiry request from this website.

Headquartered in Rancho Santa Fe, Southern California, we provide representation for wounded laborers in American Samoa and around the world.

Samoa establishes maritime precedent

a 274-foot angling craft owned by F/V Carol Linda in Pago Pago, American Samoa. Appeal filed for execution of WH Fisheries' F/V Carol Linda mortgages and the High Court of American Samoa issue an order for the ship's detention on the same date.

The United States of America then lodged a complaint with the RDA Law Firms through a resident legal advisor to apply for enforcement of the First Preferred Ship Mortgage on the ship. When F/V Carol Linda was to be sold at auction in February 2016, there were a large number of other debtors and beneficiaries who demanded its recover.

As the value of the F/V Carol Linda in ocean studies and sound estimations was between 7 and 9 million dollars, there were justified hopes that the ship's sales would allow many, if not all, believers to participate in the recover. As WH Fisheries instituted the activity and detained the ship alleging a total indebtedness of over $1. 8 million, the United States stepped in and stood at the front of the line with its first preferred ship mortgage, for which over $2. 4 million was still owed. However, this was not the case.

Surprisingly for many, there was only one offer at the ship's open auction: a single United States of America offer of $2.5 million for the lowest amount fixed for the series. Selling the ship, free of all debtors and receivables, was cleared by the High Court on March 7, 2016.

Sadly, for WH Fisheries and the other believers, their receivables from the ship were largely flushed away to the USA by the auctions. WH Fisheries, however, submitted a seldom petition asking the High Court to class over $300,000 spent on legal costs in San Diego and American Samoa as custody account charges to be immediately paid to the ship through other demands.

Following hearings on the application, WH Fisheries volunteered to reduce its legal fee entitlement to $61,000. However, the US and its lawyers filed with RDA Attorneys, and argued that none of WH Fisheries' legal costs justified being classified as custodian-legislated. According to the laws of the sea, custody costs from the revenue of a court sales are reimbursable and take precedence over all other receivables.

To be considered as custodian law expenditure, the service or goods for which a request for repayment or refund is made must have been necessary for the maintenance and conservation of the ship and for the mutual benefits of all those entitled to the ship. In its opinion, the US and the High Court noted the shortage of cases in which the judiciary considered it appropriate to treat legal costs as custodian law expenditures.

At Carol Linda, however, it was clear that WH Fisheries was the main driver behind the detention of the ship and the maintenance of both the insurer and an alternative guardian to sustain the ship during the detention. On the argument that it had taken steps to obtain the ship for WH and other claimants, WH called on the High Court to consider a part of the allocation of litigation costs as custody legis costs - but without success.

Mr. Richard deSaulles and Mr. Joshua Rovelli, US Lawyers, differentiated the scarce case law that supports the granting of legal costs as custodian legal expenditures and emphasized the remarkable lack of facts proving that the legal costs asserted were either necessary for the maintenance and upkeep of the ship or advantageous for all those with a right to the ship.

Whilst WH's entitlement to other proper custodial legislative costs related to the conservation of the ship (such as servicing and fuel) was not disputed by the US and was awarded by the High Court, the High Court has decidedly rejected WH's efforts to reimburse the legal costs as custodial legislative costs. "Every single moment a customer asks for the arrest of a ship, I am sure I can declare all the associated risk and significant costs.

I' m doing my best to express the many anticipated cost of a ship and emphasise the fact that debts of secondaries, regardless of their size, are sometimes "washed away". This makes the detention of ships by subordinated debtors or lien holders a very high-risk company. "The WH Fisheries Inc. case has shown that the absence of priority for claimants claiming the attorneys' fee as custodial charges requires that any interested person must demonstrate that the legal fee asserted was necessary for the maintenance and upkeep of the ship and advantageous for all interested persons.

Josh has quickly become a top lawyer in American Samoa and I am proud to have him on our RDA Law Firms team," said Mr deSaulles.