Appleton, Elizabeth

English

University of Denver

Water Law Review Volume 3 Issue 2 Article 31 1-1-2000 Colbro Ship Management Co. v. United States, 84 F. Supp.2d 253 (D.P.R. 2000) Elizabeth Appleton Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/wlr Custom Citation Elizabeth Appleton, Court Report, Colbro Ship Management Co. v. United States, 84 F. Supp.2d 253 (D.P.R. 2000), 3 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 441 (2000). This Court Report is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Water Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact jennifer.cox@du.edu,dig-commons@du.edu. COURT REPORTSanalysis of the calculation. The court ruled that the inadequate evidenceshould have prevented the claim for business stress from submission to thejury.The court granted the motion for a new trial in the event that thejudgment as matter of law was vacated, unless the Marina agreed to aremittitur in the amount of $100,000.Tiffany TurnerColbro Ship Management Co. v. United States, 84 F. Supp.2d 253(D.P.R. 2000) (granting defendant's motion for summary judgmentbecause substantial evidence in the administrative record supported thefinding that the plaintiff was liable for the discharge of garbage mixed withplastic into the navigable waters of the United States and holding that theassessment of the civil penalty of $10,000 was not an abuse of discretion).In May 1995, the United States Coast Guard ("USCG") in Miami,Florida, received notification that Michael Schrader, an operator of anocean-going vessel, had witnessed a man throwing a large, white garbagebag from an all-white freighter vessel with a red waterline into the UnitedStates' Exclusive Economic Zone ("EEZ") waters off the coast of Florida.Schrader approached the ship and found a trail of food, paper, and plastictrash from a split open trash bag in the water. Two vessels were in theapproximate vicinity of the witnessed incident; however, the USCG, basedon the reported position and visual description given by Schrader,identified the vessel as the Phoenix Spirit.An ensuing inspection conducted by the USCG revealed an insufficientamount of garbage on board in relation to the size of the crew and to thevoyage's duration since the last port of call where garbage could have beendischarged. Further, the ship's master did not produce any receipts fromany previous shoreside discharges. Empty white trash bags were found onboard. Schrader later identified the vessel from photographs taken by theUSCG while on approach and on board. The USCG investigatorssubsequently filed an official report with the USCG hearing officer.The hearing officer advised Colbro Ship Management Company("Colbro"), the responsible party for the Phoenix Spirit, of the initiation ofcivil penalty proceedings pursuant to the Act to Prevent Pollution fromShips ("APPS"), the International Convention for the Prevention ofPollution from Ships of 1973, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Actfor the discharge of garbage mixed with plastic into the navigable waters ofthe United States. The hearing officer's notice further advised Colbro ofthe proposed penalty of $10,000, and of its rights. Colbro purportedlyrequested a hearing, although such a request never materialized. Colbronever spoke with Schrader. Further, Colbro never secured counsel andchose instead to correspond with the hearing officer, denied liability, andchallenged the sufficiency of the evidence.After reviewing all the evidence in the administrative record, theIssue 2WATER LAW REVIEWhearing officer determined that Phoenix Spirit was responsible for thedischarge of garbage mixed with plastic into the EEZ and assessed apenalty of $10,000. Colbro appealed the decision to the USCGCommandant, who, through his designee, affirmed the decision of thehearing officer. Colbro brought this action to review the decision of themonetary penalty against it under the Clean Water Act. Both partiesmoved for summary judgment on the issue of substantial evidence.The court reviewed two issues: (1) whether liability for the dischargeof garbage into United States waters was supported by substantial evidencein the record; and (2) whether the assessment of the $10,000 penalty wasarbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion. The court, limiting itsreview to the administrative record, affirmed the USCG's determination onboth issues.On the first issue, the court defined substantial evidence as relevantevidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support aconclusion. The agency, in determining liability, relied on both direct andcircumstantial evidence. The USCG had authorization to inspect thePhoenix Spirit to determine if the ship complied with APPS under Title 33of the Code of Federal Regulations. Section 151.63 enumerated the typesof evidence that the USCG could consider in its determination: records andreceipts of garbage discharged at port facilities; the absence of plastics onboard; and the presence of shipboard spaces used for collecting, storing,and discharging ship-generated garbage. Although the evidence regardingthe amount of garbage on board was not overwhelming, the court foundthat when viewed in totality with the lack of receipts, empty trash bags,and the eyewitness account of trash being thrown overboard from thevessel positively identified as the Phoenix Spirit, the preponderance of theevidence supported the hearing officer's determination of liability. Thecourt further found that the manner in which the USCG handled the issueof vessel identification was rational.Last, the court determined that the $10,000 penalty was not arbitrary,capricious, or an abuse of discretion based on provisions in the FederalWater Pollution Control Act, which provided factors the court consideredin determining the amount of the civil penalty. The factors included: theseriousness of the violation; the degree of culpability involved; history ofprior violations; the economic benefit to the violator; and the nature,extent, and degree of success of any efforts of the violator to minimize ormitigate the effects of the discharge. Colbro presented no mitigatingevidence. Further, the USCG determined that the $10,000 penalty wasappropriate in light of the seriousness of the violation. Thus, the courtgranted the United States' motion for summary judgment, denied Colbro'scross-motion, and affirmed the Commandant's decision.Elizabeth AppletonVolume 3

Colbro Ship Management Co. v. United States, 84 F. Supp.2d 253 (D.P.R. 2000)

https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2959&context=wlr

Colbro Ship Management Co. v. United States, 84 F. Supp.2d 253 (D.P.R. 2000)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Denver