Epstein Data Wiki

Crown Bay Marina v. Jeffrey Epstein & Michelle's Transportation Company (D.V.I. 2018)

Properties2
tagscase, district-court-of-the-virgin-islands, admiralty, st-thomas, hurricane-irma, 2018
aliasesBig N Barge, 3:18-cv-00069

18 min read

CaseCrown Bay Marina, L.P. v. Jeffrey Epstein & Michelle’s Transportation Company, LLC, et al.12
CourtDistrict Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John31
Docket3:18-cv-00069; the complaint’s own caption block reads CASE NO. ST-18-CV- 69, the number hand-entered3
Jurisdiction pleadedAdmiralty and maritime, 28 U.S.C.S. § 1333; venue under 28 U.S.C.S. § 13913
PlaintiffCrown Bay Marina, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership with its principal place of business in Kirkland, Washington; owner of “Crown Bay Marina,” 8168 Sub Base, St. Thomas3
DefendantsJeffrey Epstein & Michelle’s Transportation Company, LLC, in personam; Big N Barge, a 70’ transport barge and her tackle, gear, apparel and appurtenances, in rem3
FiledSeptember 4, 20183
ProcessSummons issued September 5, 2018, hand-numbered “2018-69”, addressed to the company at 6100 Red Hook Qtr., B-3, St. Thomas4
For the plaintiffMatthew J. Duensing and Joseph D. Sauerwein, Law Offices of Duensing & Casner, on the complaint; David J. Cattie, The Cattie Law Firm, P.C., on the notice of dismissal51
For the defendantsNo appearance in any document read for this page; the plaintiff’s February 2019 certificate of service treats the company as a “non-filer user”2
Sum claimed”not less than the presently estimated allocated amount of $160,473” to repair the marina, and “over $70,000 in allocated expenses” for temporary repairs6
DispositionNotice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, Document 8, filed February 19, 2019 under V.I.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)1

Crown Bay Marina, L.P. v. Jeffrey Epstein & Michelle’s Transportation Company, LLC, et al., 3:18-cv-00069, was an admiralty action in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John. A St. Thomas marina sued the company that it said owned a 70-foot transport barge, and sued the barge herself in rem, for damage it alleged the barge did to the marina’s piers and pilings when Hurricane Irma struck in September 2017.6 The verified complaint was filed on September 4, 2018 and the case ended on February 19, 2019, when the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice.31

Jeffrey Epstein was not a party. The words “Jeffrey Epstein” in the caption are the first three words of the defendant company’s own name. The complaint names two defendants and no natural person: the company in personam, and the vessel in rem.3 Counsel’s running head on the complaint’s continuation sheets short-titles the case “Crown Bay Marina, L.P. v. Epstein”, which is how the pleading comes to look, at a glance, like a suit against the man.7

The dockage papers

The complaint attaches, as Exhibit A, the paperwork the marina says the parties entered into “[o]n or about September 3, 2017.”6 Exhibit A is four sheets and three instruments.8910

The first is a License Agreement For Dockage on Crown Bay Marina’s own form. Its registration panel gives the slip as B03, the vessel name as “Big N”, the folio number as 37031, the arrival date as 9/3/2017 and the departure date as 9/7/2017, and the vessel’s dimensions as 70 feet in length, 20 feet in beam and 6 feet in draft. The owner or captain is given as “Rodriguez Ann”. The agent or owner’s signature block is signed and dated 9/3/17.8

The second is a Dayworker Agreement of Waiver of Liability and Assumption of Risk, “[t]o be signed by Owner/Captain”. It is signed, with the printed name “Ann Rodriguez”, the title “BARGE MANAGER”, the name of vessel “Big N” and the date 9/3/17.9 These papers print the surname with a g; Ann Rodriquez uses the q spelling and sets out why.

The third is the marina’s 2017 Hurricane Evacuation Protocol, completed by hand: “I, Ann Rodriguez, owner/agent of the vessel Big N Barge, docked in Crown Bay Marina agree to the following Hurricane Evacuation Protocol in accordance with the terms below.” It sets out seven terms, signed and dated 9/3/17. Its last line, set in capitals and underlined above the signature, reads: “CROWN BAY MARINA SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A SAFE HARBOR DURING TROPICAL WEATHER CONDITIONS.”10

That disclaimer is not an isolated line. Section 8 of the License Agreement, headed “Storms and Other Emergencies”, puts the same thing at length: “The Owner shall make suitable arrangements for safe, sheltered anchorage during tropical storms, hurricanes or other inclement weather and Owner hereby warrants such arrangements have or will be made. Owner may not assume that Marina’s premises will be a safe, sheltered anchorage during tropical storms or hurricanes.”11 The marina attached all of this to its own complaint.

Section 17 of the same agreement is why the action is in this court. It provides that any proceeding “relating to or concerning this Agreement shall be instituted and prosecuted in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John and each party waives any right to change of venue”, and it continues: every such proceeding “SHALL BE BARRED UNLESS IT IS COMMENCED AND PROCESS IS SERVED WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE COURSE OF ACTION HAS ACCRUED.”11

The complaint

The Verified Complaint runs to four sheets and thirteen numbered paragraphs, and is Document 1 on the docket.12 It pleads jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1333 “as this is a civil case of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction”, and venue under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1391.3

On the defendants, it pleads only what a plaintiff can plead at the outset. Paragraph 5 alleges, “[u]pon information and belief”, that the company “is a limited liability company authorized to do business in the United States Virgin Islands and owner of the Defendant vessel, Big N Barge.” Paragraph 6 alleges that the barge “is a 70’ transport barge owned by Defendant and utilized for coastal transportation.”6

The liability case is three paragraphs. Paragraph 8 quotes Section 10 of the License Agreement: “[t]he owner shall be liable for all damages to the Boat Slip and other facilities owned by [CBM] and other boats or vessels or person on or about [CBM’s] premises caused by the Vessel, Owner’s employees, family, agents, invitees or guests …”; the bracketed substitutions are the pleading’s own.6 Paragraph 9 alleges that “[b]eginning on or about September 6, 2017, Hurricane Irma made landfall on St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. causing widespread destruction.” Paragraph 10 alleges that the company “inadequately secured Big N Barge in its Boat Slip located in the Marina as Hurricane Irma approached and then made landfall at St. Thomas.”6

Paragraph 11 is the damage: “CBM sustained heavy damage caused by Defendant vessel to the concrete finger piers, pilings, wooden walers, cleats and other equipment, totaling not less than the presently estimated allocated amount of $160,473 necessary to repair and restore the damaged Marina and over $70,000 in allocated expenses to implement temporary repairs to minimize any loss of income.”6

Paragraph 13 is the admiralty claim proper: “CBM is further entitled to a maritime lien against the vessel, Big N Barge, which may be enforced to secure payment for any damages awarded herein, pursuant to Rules C and E of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty and Maritime Claims.”13 The prayer asks for the damages, for a maritime lien awarded and enforced against the barge “to satisfy any monetary award rendered herein”, for interest, for fees and costs, and for further relief.13

Because the plaintiff sought a maritime lien, the pleading had to be verified. It is: below the signature block of Duensing & Casner, dated September 4, 2018, Kosei Ohno signs in ink above a typed line giving him as president of St. Thomas Marina Corporation, the marina’s general partner. The verification opens “I, the undersigned, Kosei Ohno, as the president of St. Thomas Marina Corporation, which is the general partner of Crown Bay Marina, L.P. and pursuant to Rule C of the Federal Supplemental Rules for Admiralty, in seeking a maritime lien”, and goes on to verify that he has read the complaint, that “Big N Barge” is “a 70-foot transport barge with a 20 foot beam and 6 foot draft”, and that “upon information and belief, Big N Barge is within this jurisdiction.”5

The civil cover sheet filed the same day gives the brief description of the cause as “Tortious Damage to Property and Marine Contact” and, in the box asking for the civil statute under which the filer is proceeding, 46 U.S.C.S. § 30301, e seq., which is the maritime lien chapter and not the jurisdictional section the complaint pleads. The origin box marked is 1 Original Proceeding, the demand box is empty, and the jury demand box is marked No. The sheet gives the county of residence of the first listed plaintiff as King County, Washington and that of the first listed defendant as St. Thomas and St. John. It carries a digital signature stamp for Matthew J. Duensing timed 2018.09.04 15:58:02 -04'00'.14

The clerk issued the summons the following day. The issued writ gives the Civil Action No. by hand as “2018-69”, is signed and dated 9/5/2018, and is addressed, in the block for the defendant’s name and address, to Jeffrey Epstein & Michelle’s Transportation Company, LLC at 6100 Red Hook Qtr., B-3, St. Thomas, VI 00802. It warns that “[i]f you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.”4

Two numbers on one pleading

The complaint’s own caption block reads CASE NO. ST-18-CV- 69, with the 69 written in by hand on a ruled blank, while the electronic filing stamp across the head of the same sheet reads Case: 3:18-cv-00069.3 The notice that ends the case five and a half months later prints CASE NO. 3:18-CV-69 in its caption.1 No document read for this page explains the difference.

The defendant company

Nothing in the pleadings read for this page says who owned or controlled Jeffrey Epstein & Michelle’s Transportation Company, LLC. The complaint alleges only that it was authorised to do business in the territory and owned the barge.6

A separate document puts a company of close to that name in a list of accounts on which Epstein was a named signatory. FirstBank Puerto Rico, answering a grand jury subpoena in March 2020, returned a table of commercial checking accounts giving for each an account name and its named signatories. One row reads MICHELLE'S TRANSPORTATION CO LLC, opened 09/14/07, with three named signatories: DARREN K INDYKE, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and HARRY BELLER.15 The bank’s short form of the name is not the caption’s long form, and no document read for this page states that the two are the same company.

The dismissal

On February 19, 2019, the plaintiff filed Document 8, a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. Its whole operative text is one sentence: “NOTICE is hereby given that Plaintiff, CROWN BAY MARINA, L.P., by and through its undersigned counsel, David J. Cattie, Esq. of the Cattie Law Firm, PC, and pursuant to V.I.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A) hereby voluntarily dismisses the above captioned matter without prejudice.”1

Two things on its face are worth stating exactly. The plaintiff had changed lawyers: the complaint was signed by Duensing & Casner and the notice by David J. Cattie of The Cattie Law Firm, P.C., of 1710 Kongens Gade, St. Thomas, the firm noting on the same sheet, “Please note our new address”.1 And the rule invoked is V.I.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A), the Virgin Islands rule, cited in a filing whose own caption and docket header are those of the federal District Court of the Virgin Islands.1

The certificate of service on the second sheet records that counsel “electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system”, and that he “emailed this document to the following non-filer user”, above an address block giving the defendant company at 6100 Red Hook Qtr., B-3, St. Thomas, VI 00802.2 On the face of that certificate the company was not receiving filings through the electronic system, and no document read for this page shows any appearance by it.

A notice of voluntary dismissal is a fact about a filing and not a finding about the merits. Nothing read for this page says why the plaintiff withdrew, and nothing read for this page determines whether the barge did what the complaint alleged. A dismissal without prejudice leaves the claim as it was found.

What the record does not settle

  • Documents 2 through 7. The complaint is Document 1 and the notice of dismissal is Document 8. No document read for this page shows what was filed in between.
  • Service. No document read for this page records when, or whether, the summons was served. The Proof of Service sheet of the summons form filed with the complaint is the blank form, unmarked and unsigned.16 Section 17 of the dockage agreement requires both commencement and service within one year of accrual; the second limb cannot be tested from what was read here.11
  • The bench. No document read for this page carries a judicial signature or names the judge or magistrate judge. The docket header printed across the top of the notice of dismissal carries the initials CVG-RM, which no document read for this page expands.1
  • The vessel. No document read for this page records an arrest of the barge, a bond, or any other step under Supplemental Rule C.
  • The interval. The complaint gives September 6, 2017 as the date of landfall and was filed on September 4, 2018, three hundred and sixty-three days later.6 Whether that was deliberate is not something the documents read here answer.

Documents

DocumentDescription
EFTA00788096Verified Complaint, Document 1, filed September 4, 2018, four sheets
EFTA00798407The issued summons, followed by the complaint and by Exhibit A, Document 1-1, in one nine-sheet run
EFTA00788086JS 44 civil cover sheet, Document 1-2, September 4, 2018
EFTA00788090Summons form, Document 1-3, with the Proof of Service page blank
EFTA00796207Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, Document 8, February 19, 2019
EFTA00065864FirstBank Puerto Rico’s response to a grand jury subpoena, March 9, 2020, listing the accounts

Timeline

DateEvent
September 14, 2007A commercial checking account in the name “Michelle’s Transportation Co LLC” is opened at FirstBank Puerto Rico, with Darren K. Indyke, Jeffrey Epstein and Harry Beller as its named signatories15
September 3, 2017The License Agreement For Dockage, the Dayworker waiver and the 2017 Hurricane Evacuation Protocol are signed for the vessel “Big N” at slip B03; arrival that day, departure booked for September 78910
September 6, 2017The date the complaint gives for Hurricane Irma’s landfall on St. Thomas6
September 4, 2018The Verified Complaint, the civil cover sheet and the summons form are filed121416
September 5, 2018The clerk issues the summons to the defendant company4
February 19, 2019The plaintiff, by new counsel, files a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice and serves the company by email as a non-filer user12

Places: Little Saint James; Great St. James. People: Ann Rodriquez; Darren K. Indyke; Harry Beller; Paul Hoffman; Bradley Gillin; Jeffrey Epstein. Entities: Thomas World Air; Nautilus, Inc.; LSJE, LLC. Cases: United States v. Epstein (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Footnotes

  1. “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice,” Document 8, filed February 19, 2019, sheet 1 of 2, carrying the caption, the operative sentence, the date and the signature block of The Cattie Law Firm, P.C. Read at the image at 350 dpi. The caption on this sheet prints the vessel’s name as “BIN N BARGE”; the complaint prints “BIG N BARGE”, and the spelling here is the filing’s own. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00796207 p.1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11

  2. Certificate of service, the second sheet of the same notice, giving the case short title, the electronic filing and the service by e-mail on the defendant company as a “non-filer user”. Read at the image at 350 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00796207 p.2 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  3. The complaint’s first sheet: the court and division, the caption naming the two defendants, the hand-entered case number, the electronic filing stamp, the opening paragraph and paragraphs 1 to 4. Read at the image at 350 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00788096 p.1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10

  4. Summons in a Civil Action, form AO 440 (Rev. 06/12), issued by the Clerk of Court; “Civil Action No. 2018-” with “69” added by hand, the clerk’s line signed, and the Date line completed by hand “9/5/2018”. Read at the image at 350 dpi. This sheet sits at the head of a nine-sheet run whose remaining sheets are the complaint and Exhibit A; it is a separate court instrument and not part of Document 1. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00798407 p.1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  5. The complaint’s fourth sheet: the signature block of the Law Offices of Duensing & Casner dated September 4, 2018, and the verification. The ink signature over the typed attribution to Kosei Ohno as president of the general partner was read at the image at 350 dpi. That attribution is set on two typed lines and is described rather than quoted. The extraction of this sheet renders the verification’s opening “I” as the digit 1. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00788096 p.4 ↩ ↩2

  6. The complaint’s second sheet, paragraphs 5 to 11, carrying the allegations about the company and the vessel, the dockage agreements, section 10 of the licence, the landfall, the securing of the barge and the sums claimed. Read at the image at 350 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00788096 p.2 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10

  7. The running head printed above the rule on each of the complaint’s three continuation sheets: the word COMPLAINT, then the short title, then the sheet number. All three read at the image at 350 dpi. The extraction of the second sheet renders the short title “Crown Ray Marina, L.P. v. Epstein”, a B read as an R; the damaged form is given here so that a checker searching for the printed form, and finding it only on the two later sheets, is not mistaken for a wrong pin. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00788096 pp.2-4 ↩

  8. License Agreement For Dockage, Crown Bay Marina, filed as Exhibit A to the complaint, Document 1-1, sheet 1 of 4. Read at the image at 350 dpi: the registration panel, the signature and the hand date. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00798407 p.6 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  9. “Dayworker Agreement of Waiver of Liability and Assumption of Risk,” Crown Bay Marina, Exhibit A sheet 3 of 4, “To be signed by Owner/Captain”. Read at the image at 350 dpi: the signature, the printed name, the title and the hand date. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00798407 p.8 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  10. “Crown Bay Marina 2017 Hurricane Evacuation Protocol,” Exhibit A sheet 4 of 4, completed by hand, seven numbered terms, signed and dated. Read at the image at 350 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00798407 p.9 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  11. The same License Agreement For Dockage, Exhibit A sheet 2 of 4, carrying sections 7 to 22 in two columns. This sheet is bound into the filing upside down: the electronic filing stamp runs the right way up across the head and the body of the sheet is inverted, which is how the scan was made and not a defect of this citation. Sections 8 and 17 were read at the image at 350 dpi after rotating the render through 180 degrees. Section 17 prints “COURSE OF ACTION” where the sense is cause of action; the quotation on this page is the form’s own wording. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00798407 p.7 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  12. “Verified Complaint,” Crown Bay Marina, L.P. v. Jeffrey Epstein & Michelle’s Transportation Company, LLC, and Big N Barge, District Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John, Document 1, filed September 4, 2018; four sheets, thirteen numbered paragraphs, a five-item prayer and a verification. All four sheets read at the image at 350 dpi. This note covers the document as a whole; the four notes below pin each sheet separately, so that each quotation can be tested against the sheet it comes from. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00788096 pp.1-4 ↩ ↩2

  13. The complaint’s third sheet, paragraphs 12 and 13 and the five-item prayer for relief. Read at the image at 350 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00788096 p.3 ↩ ↩2

  14. JS 44 civil cover sheet, form JS 44 (Rev. 11/04), Document 1-2, filed September 4, 2018, two sheets, the second being the printed instructions. Read at the image at 350 dpi: boxes V, VI and VII, the county fields and the digital signature stamp. The statute box prints “e seq.” for et seq., and the plaintiff county field runs into the column rule at its last character, so the county is described here rather than quoted. The extraction of this sheet is heavily damaged and the readings here are the image’s. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00788086 p.1 ↩ ↩2

  15. FirstBank Puerto Rico to an Assistant United States Attorney, Southern District of New York, March 9, 2020, responding to a grand jury subpoena; the second sheet is a table of commercial checking accounts giving, for each, the account name, the named signatories, an opening date and a status. The row quoted here was read at the image at 350 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00065864 p.2 ↩ ↩2

  16. Summons in a Civil Action, form AO 440 (Rev. 06/12), Document 1-3, two sheets, filed September 4, 2018. The second sheet was read at the image at 350 dpi: the Civil Action No. carries only the year prefix, every option box is unmarked, every line is empty, the fee total reads 0.00, and the sheet still carries the live form buttons, so it is the unfilled form and not a return of service. The first sheet was read from the text layer only. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00788090 pp.1-2 ↩ ↩2

Backlinks