WPC 9~|TWy_ٖ6YQʮ+[fza.U)-Ǵs]fq+YyJ͔*j6pt vEFNt٠RM1rv e m79D'K4YR!CH,M̈́* !ÿ\r.3ZhTUdž}0<CtEۇmSh=ffuIyt>&CMqДIA5h$F PTvXgz& I \' 1>mnV wzMG*|,drZg]qazL>1tob[8-/OꗷL+ v6Q8!~@ނI!(#0 % 0D 0GCU: 0U8nTN5 UN7 UF   ^ w 4 E f a # 2 m4 NK ^M 0 UB b Z \O  BHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 5e,,,,0X(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(:2 $ !XTXXX    =TXdd=    0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@vr Z6Times New Roman Regular<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular    $XDXXX  =DXdd=    *    _OftheSouthernDistrictofNewYork,sittingbydesignation.#2  ʑ2r2WbackupTABLE A3|x UL:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<bbD\:QuickFormat1XXX  cb  XXX  cb  <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- - P  $XDXXX  =DXdd=    1    _ThedistrictcourtfoundthatMayflowerandAtlanticwerenot  actingaspartnersinasingleventurerather,theformerwasa  salesagentfortheproducersoftheherring,H&LAxelsson,while \ thelatterwaseitherthebuyerofthefishoranagentforor 2 jointventurerwithOUWatkins,theultimatebuyer. R  $XDXXX  =DXdd=    2    _Thebillsofladingprovidedinteraliathatany Merchant  hadtoindemnifythecarrierforcollectioncostsanddefined  merchanttoincludetheshipper,receiver,consignee,orbillof \ ladingholderandanyoneowningorentitledtopossessionofthe 2 shipmentwhetherasagentorotherwise.   $XDXXX  =DXdd=    3    _Anothersetoffederalstatutoryprovisions,49U.S.C.  8010180116,applicabletoanytransportationofgoodsviacommon  carrier"fromaplaceinaStatetoaplaceinaforeigncountry, \ id.80102,alsoimposesstatutorydutiesoncarriersand 2 regulatesbillsofladingforsuchtransportation;but,likeCOGSA, X itdoesnotcreateliabilityforfreightchargesorregulate . collectionofsuchchargesbythecarrier.   $XDXXX  =DXdd=    4    _Cf.PacificCoastFruitDistributors,Inc.v.Pa.R.R.Co.,  217F.2d273,27475(9thCir.1954)(holdingthatadefendant,  "thoughnotnamedasapartyintheoriginalbillofladingbecame \ suchbyamendment,asitwere,"sincethedefendantwas"designated 2 asconsigneebytheshipper"afterthebillofladinghadbeen X executed,"tookovercontrolanddirectionoftheshipmentandmade . successivereconsignmentsthereof"). d !XDXXX  _TRX3'X3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT ? * ! X%NXXXD X X%N     UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals T   FortheFirstCircuit  [ T XDX [     `     h      p      x  A') ` dE<` A   No.042168   @ _EIMSKIP_,THEICELANDSTEAMSHIPCOMPANY,_LTD_; K  @!_EIMSKIP_ԀUSA,INC., ! q @Plaintiffs,Appellees,    @tt)v. y  @ ATLANTICFISHMARKET,INC., %u  @ Defendant,Appellant. ! A') ` dE<|` A } @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT b @0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS ^ @x x [Hon.MorrisE._Lasker_,  #  *      ׀U.S.DistrictJudge]   A') ` dE<e` A f @'Before K   @@((Boudin,ChiefJudge, G LynchandLipez,CircuitJudges.   A') ` dE<N ` A O "       GeraldJ._Zyfers_forappellant. p  4!$   DavidJ.Farrell,Jr.withwhomAdmiraltyLawOfficeofDavid  "Z% J.Farrell,Jr.wasonbriefforappellees. "0& *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  $($   SI$@ ) @38559@SJuly27,2005 %!+  RHC&!," @38559 @ R($@ -  (  * !    N)$/? _  8DXXdd8*,X` XX* ` BOUDIN,ChiefJudge. ThisappealisbroughtbyAtlantic  FishMarket,Inc.( Atlantic),acodefendantinthedistrict x court,toreviewajudgmentofthedistrictcourtholdingAtlantic $t liableforfreightchargesandattorneysfees.Theplaintiffin   thedistrictcourtwasthecarrier,_EIMSKIP_,TheIcelandSteamship |  Company,Ltd.( _EIMSKIP_),whichtransportedtheshipmentsin ( x  questionfrozenherringfromMassachusettstoEstoniainJuly $  2001.Thestoryisswiftlytold.    ` InJune2001,priortotheshipmentsnowindispute, ,|  Atlanticbookedtwoshipmentsoffrozenherringtobetransported ( by_EIMSKIP_ԀfromMassachusettstoEstonia("theJuneshipments").  ThebillsofladinglistedMayflowerInternational,Ltd. 0 ("Mayflower")asthefish'sshipperandconsignedthefish"to , orderofshipper";butAtlanticreceivedthefreightinvoicesand  paidthecharges.Atlanticalsopurchasedthefish,paying 4 Mayflowerhalfthepurchasepriceuponloadingofthecargoandthe 0 balanceuponitsarrivalinEstonia.    ` Amonthlater,threemoresuchshipmentsweremade("the 8!" Julyshipments").ThedistrictcourtlaterfoundthatAtlanticwas "4$ responsible(amongothertasks)forbookingtwooftheseshipments $& with_EIMSKIP_,negotiatingthefreightrates,andreceivingthe <&!( cargoinEstonia.ItalsofoundthatAtlanticrepresentedtoboth '8#* _EIMSKIP_ԀandMayflowerthatitwouldpaythefreight.Mayflower )$, tookresponsibilityforexaminingthefishbeforeshipment, @+&. coordinatingtheshipmentdates,proofingandfinalizingthebills  oflading,andadministeringothershippingdetails. \  ` AswasthecasewiththeJuneshipments,thebillsof X ladinginJulylistedMayflowerastheshipperandthegoodswere   consigned"toorderofshipper."Mayflower'sprincipal,WilliamC. `  _Quinby_,testifiedattrialthatthishadbeendonetoensurethat  \  controlofthecargowouldnotpasstoAtlanticuntilAtlantichad   paidforthefish._Quinby_ԀstatedthatMayflowerwasseeking"to d  maintaincontrolofthecargofortheownersofthecargo,H&L `  _Axelsson_,andnotletthecargobereleaseduntiltheyhadsecure   payment."H&L_Axelsson_Ԁisnotapartytothisproceeding. #  1       h  ` WhentheherringarrivedinEstoniainlateJuly,the d freight!totaling$91,840remainedunpaid._EIMSKIP_Ԁplacedahold  onthecargo,andMayflowercalled_EIMSKIP_ԀtosaythatAtlantichad l notyetpaidthepurchasepricefortheherringandthatMayflower h didnotwishthecargotobereleasedtoAtlantic.Atlantic,the  districtjudgefound,eventuallypromisedagainthatitwouldpay p  forthefreight,and_EIMSKIP_Ԁthenturnedovertheherringafter !l" Mayfloweragreedtotherelease. "$  ` Atlanticthenfailedtopaythefreightcharges,first t$& sayingthatitwashavingfinancialtroubleandwouldpayassoon  &p!( aspossibleandlatersayingthatitwouldnotpaybecausethere  hadbeenproblemswiththecargo.InJuly2002,_EIMSKIP_Ԁbrought \ suitagainstAtlanticandMayflowerinthefederaldistrictcourt X inMassachusetts,seekingtorecoverfreightchargesandalso   seekingrelatedcollectioncosts(includingattorneysfees)under `  abillofladingprovisionpurportingtomakeavarietyofpersons  \  liableforcollectioncosts. #  2          ` Afterabenchtrial,thedistrictcourtfoundthat d  AtlanticandMayflowerhadbothbeenshippersofthecargo. `  BecauseMayflowerwaslistedastheshipperandconsigneeonthe   billsoflading,thecourtsaidthatitwaspresumptivelyprimarily h liableforthefreightcharges.Butthecourtheldthatinthis d instanceAtlanticwasprimarilyliable(andMayfloweronly  secondarilyliable)becauseof l \XDXX XDXDXXXDcb    8 ` \"  Atlantic'smultiplerepresentationstoboth h Mayflowerand_EIMSKIP_Ԁthatitwouldbeliable > forthecargo;thecourseofdealingsamong  thepartiespriortotheshipmentsatissue  (inparticular,Atlantic'spaymentsofthetwo p  priorinvoices[fortheJuneshipments]);and F ! _EIMSKIP_'sdecisiontolifttheholdonthe !l" cargoafterspeakingto[Atlantic'spresident !B# Boris]_Sorkin_Ԁ....\"<#݌"$` x` x   XDXXXD XDXX XDcb     #%  ` Astocollectioncosts,thedistrictcourtheldthatthe   pertinentconditioninthebillofladingmakingthe merchant \ liableappliedtobothAtlanticandMayflowerandmadeeachcompany X jointlyandseverallyliableforspecifiedcostsandattorneys'   fees(approximately$62,000).Itenteredjudgmentagainstthe `  defendantsastofreightandcollectioncostsinaccordancewith  \  itsliabilityfindings.Atlantichasnowappealed,contestingits   liabilityastobothfreightandattorneysfees. d   ` Atlanticsclaimonappealastofreightchargesis `  straightforward.Itsaysthatitwasneithershippernorconsignee   onthebillofladingandthatunderthefederalCarriageofGoods h bySeaAct( _COGSA_),46U.S.C.app.13001315(2000),onlya d partysonamedinthebillofladingcanbeheldliableforfreight  charges.WhetherAtlanticcouldberegardedasapartytothebill l ofladingdespitenotbeingnameddoesnotmatterbecause h Atlantic'sunderstandingof_COGSA_Ԁastheexclusivebasisfor  liabilityismistaken. p   ` _COGSA_,whichappliestospecifiedclassesofshipments !l" includingthisone,governscertainaspectsoftherelationship "$ betweencarrierandshipper.Forexample,itimposesspecific t$& dutiesandliabilitiesonthecarrier,includinganobligationto  &p!( furnishabillofladingtotheshipper,46U.S.C.app.1303;and '#* itprovidesproceduresandastatuteoflimitationsforclaims x)$, againstthecarrierforlostordamagedgoods,id.Whatitdoes $+t&. notdoiscreateacauseofactionfor,orregulatethecollection  of,freightcharges. #  3       \  ` "Absentarelevantstatute,thegeneralmaritimelaw,as X developedbythejudiciary,applies."EastRiverS.S.Corp.v.   _Transamerica_Ԁ_Delaval_,Inc.,476U.S.858,864(1986).Anyonewho `  contractstopayforoceanfreightcanbeheldliableinaccordance  \  withordinarycontractlawasappliedinmaritimematters.See   NorfolkS.Ry.Co.v.Kirby,125S.Ct.385,397(2004).Andoral d  contractsarevalidundergeneralmaritimelaw.See_Kossick_v. `  UnitedFruitCo.,365U.S.731,734(1961);_Fontneau_v.Townof   Sandwich,251F.Supp.2d994,1001(D.Mass.2003).Undergeneral h maritimelaw,thisisasimplecase. d  ` Theevidenceadducedattrialsupportsthedistrict  courtsfindingthatAtlanticagreedwith_EIMSKIP_Ԁtopaythe l freightfortheJulyshipmentsinreturnfor_EIMSKIP_'sservicesin h transportingtheherringtoEstonia.Thisfindingwaswell  supportedbysubsidiaryfindingsthatAtlanticonnumerous p  occasionsmadeoralpromisestopaythefreightontheJuly !l" shipments;thatAtlanticwasinvoicedby_EIMSKIP_Ԁforthefreighton "$ boththeJuneandJulyshipments(Mayflowerwasneverinvoicedfor t$& theseshipments);thatAtlanticdidinfactpaythefreightonthe  Juneshipments;andthatAtlantic'spresidentfailedtodisputethe \ invoicesinnumerousconversationswith_EIMSKIP_ԀbetweenAugust2001 X andJuly2002.    ` TheonlysubsidiaryfindingdisputedbyAtlanticonthis `  appealisthedistrictcourtsfindingthatAtlanticorallybooked  \  thefirsttwooftheJulyshipments.Atlantic'spresident,who   offeredtheonlycontradictorytestimony,wasfoundbythedistrict d  courttobe"uncooperative,evasive,nonresponsive,andlessthan `  credible.""[_C]redibility_Ԁdeterminationsareratherwellinsulated   fromappellatechallenge."_Pimentel_v.JacobsonFishingCo.,102 h F.3d638,640(1stCir.1996).Thedistrictcourtdidnotcommit d  clearerror!theapplicablestandardonreview,Fed.R.Civ.P.  52(a);RationalSoftwareCorp.v.SterlingCorp.,393F.3d276,276 l (1stCir.2005)inacceptingtheviewthatAtlanticbookedthe h shipments.   ` ThisisampletosustainAtlanticsliabilitywithout p  regardtowhetherAtlanticwastechnicallyapartytothebillof !l" lading.Twopartiesmayeachmakethemselvesliabletoathird "$ partyforpaymentofthesamefreightonasingleshipment!oneby t$& acontractreflectedinpartbythebillofladingandtheotherby  &p!( explicitpromisesandcourseofconductindependentofthebillof '#*  lading.OnthedistrictcourtsfindingsAtlanticmadesuch x)$, promisesbothbeforethevoyageandtofacilitatereleaseofthe  cargo. \   ` WhetherAtlanticcouldbeheldliableonthebillof X ladingisaseparatequestion.Conceivablysomeonemightbeliable   onabillofladingwithoutbeingnamedinit,eitherthrough `  agencydoctrineorbyseparatelyagreeingtobesubjecttoits  \  terms. #  4      ׀Allthatmattersinthiscaseisthatthereisnothingin   generalmaritimelaworintheprecedentsconcerningbillsof d  ladingthatmakesthemtheexclusivemeansofcreatingliability `  forfreightcharges.    ` InLouisville&NashvilleR.R.Co.v.CentralIron&Coal h Co.,265U.S.59,67(1924),chieflyrelieduponbyAtlantic,the d SupremeCourtsaidthat"[_t]o_Ԁascertainwhatcontractwasentered  intowelookprimarilytothebillsoflading,bearinginmindthat l theinstrumentservesbothasareceiptandasacontract,"and h that"[_o]rdinarily_,thepersonfromwhomthegoodsarereceivedfor  shipmentassumestheobligationtopaythefreightcharges;andhis p  obligationisordinarilyaprimaryone."Thisprobablyremainsthe !l"  usualsituation. "$  ` YetLouisville&NashvilleR.R.Co.itself,aswellas   circuitcourtsinsubsequentcases,haveheldthatthispatternand \ presumptioncanbeovercomebystatute,bycontractualprovisions, X orbytheparties'courseofconduct.SeeLouisville&Nashville   R.R.Co.,265U.S.at6768;A/S_Dampskibsselskabet_Ԁ_Torm_v. `  BeaumontOilLtd.,927F.2d713,71622(2dCir.),cert.denied,  \  502U.S.862(1991);StatesMarine_Int'l_,Inc.v.SeattleFirst   _Nat'l_ԀBank,524F.2d245,24749(9thCir.1975);seealsoCapitol d  Transp.,Inc.v.UnitedStates,612F.2d1312,131921&n.10(1st `  Cir.1979)(holdingthatthebillofladingisnottheonly   evidenceastotheidentityoftheconsignee). h  ` ThedistrictcourtalsoruledthatasbetweenAtlantic d andMayflower,theformerwas primarilyliable.Infactthe  districtcourtsaidfurtherthatAtlanticcouldnotseekindemnity l orcontributionfromMayflowerandthatMayflowerwouldbeliable h onlyif_EIMSKIP_ԀcouldnotcollectfromAtlantic.Atlantichas  failedtochallengethisdeterminationonappeal,sowearespared p  anyneedforfurtherdiscussionoftheissue. !l"  ` Thisbringsustotheawardofattorneys'fees.Inits "$ openingbrief,Atlanticoffersanargumentofthreeparagraphs t$& comprisingtwopoints.Themainclaimisthatthedistrictjudge  &p!( erredinallegedlyfailingtogiveAtlantictherequisitetimeto '#* respondto_EIMSKIP_srequestforfees.Thesecondaryclaimisthat x)$, thedistrictcourtshouldhavereducedtheamountbecausethefees $+t&. sought(sofar)areabouttwothirdstheamountoftheunderlying  freightclaimandthereforeexcessive. \  ` Startingwithchronology,thedistrictcourtenteredits X mainorderimposingliabilityforfreightcharges,costsand   attorneys'feesonJuly14,2004.OnJuly20,2004,_EIMSKIP_Ԁfiled `  adeclarationinsupportofattorneysfeessettingforthcounsels  \  invoicesbydateandprovidingabriefjustification.OnJuly27,   2004,atMayflowersrequest,_EIMSKIP_Ԁfiledasupplemental d  declarationprovidingdailytimesheetsummariesandother `  information.OnAugust4,2004,thedistrictjudgeenteredfinal   judgment,includingtherequestedattorneysfees. h  ` Neitherduringthistwoweekperiod,norafterwards,is d thereanyfilinginthedistrictcourtreflectinganobjectionor  oppositionbyAtlantic.Now,onappealapparentlydatingfrom l July27forwardAtlanticsaysthatitwasaviolationofLocal h Rule7.1forthedistrictcourttoactonAtlanticsrequest  withoutwaitingthe14daysprovidedbytheruleforonepartyto p  respondtoamotionfiledbyanother.SeeD.Mass.R.7.1(b)(2). !l" _EIMSKIP_Ԁdisputesthatthelocalruleapplied,butweneednot "$ decidetheissue.XDXX XD t$&  ` # XDXXXDT#IfAtlanticactuallyintendedtoopposetherequestfor  &p!( attorneys'feesandwassurprisedbyaprematureentryofjudgment, '#* itcertainlyhadadutytotellthedistrictjudgeandrequestan x)$, opportunitytorespond.Ofcourse,alitigantdoesnotinall $+t&. circumstanceshaveanobligationtoreturntothedistrictjudge  andchallengeeverymistakebeforeappealing.Butitisimpossible \ tobelievethatthejudgewouldnothaveacceptedanarguably X belatedfilingwhere,ashere,thedeadlinewasperhapsuncertain   becauseof_EIMSKIP_'ssupplementalfilingortheapplicabilityof `  thelocalrule.  \   ` Inallevents,weneednotconsiderfurtherwhetherthe   localrulewasapplicableorwhethertheobjectionshouldbedeemed d  forfeit.Instead,wedealdirectlywiththesinglesubstantive `  objectionthatAtlanticnowmakestothebillforattorneys'fees.   Initsopeningbrief,Atlanticarguesthatthefeeawardis h inherentlyunreasonableXDXX XDbecauseitislargeandalmosttwothirds d oftheamountcollectedinfreightcharges.Atlantichasnowseen  thesupportingmaterialanddoesnotsuggestthatitseesanything l wrongwiththedocumentation. h  ` Onthemeritsoftheobjection,wethinkitishopeless.  Thereisnonecessaryrelationshipbetweentheamountofthe p  freightowedandthecostofcollection,thelatterdependingon !l" thecomplexityofthefactsandlegalissues,thenumberof "$ depositionsanddocuments,andthelengthoftrial.Noristhe t$& plaintiffcarrier,inthefaceofrecalcitrance,requiredtoforgo  &p!( suitonamountsowedtoitbecausethecostsofcollection!tobe '#* paidbyadefendant!equalorexceedtheinitialdebt.Sofaras x)$, wecantell,counselsfeewaswellearned. $+t&.  ` Initsreplybrief,Atlanticoffersforthefirsttimeon  appealthatwhateveritsliabilityforfreightcharges,liability \ forattorneysfeesdepends(undertheAmericanrule)onaspecific X statuteorcontract,andheretheonlycontractprovidingforsuch   liabilityisthebilloflading.Weaddthatthebroad merchant `  definitioninthebilloflading!althoughitprobablyembraces  \  Atlantic!arguablyisnotbindingonsomeonewhowasnot(insome   fashion)apartytothebillofladingorotherwiseacceptedthe d  obligation. `   ` WhetherAtlanticisliableforcounselfeespresentsnice   issuesforexample,whetherAtlanticisimplicitlyapartytothe h billofladingorwhetheritsseparatepromisestopayforthe d shipmentsincorporatedcounselfeesaswellasfreight.But  Atlantichasforfeitedanysuchargumentagainstitsliabilityfor l counselfeesbyomittingitfromitsopeningbrief,thereby h depriving_EIMSKIP_Ԁofanopportunitytorespond.Thatistheendof  thematter.SeeRivera_Muriente_v._Agosto_Ԅ_Alicea_,959F.2d349, p  354(1stCir.1992). !l"  ` Thejudgmentinthiscase,admirablyhandledbythe "$ districtcourt,isaffirmed.# XDXXXDLZ#