Sendowski v. M/Y Monarch et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 25-60815-CIV-DAMIAN/Valle
JANUSZ SENDOWSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
M/Y MONARCH, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 71]
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle’s Report
and Recommendation, entered on January 20, 2026 [ECF No. 71 (the “Report”)], on
Plaintiff, Janusz Sendowski’s (“Plaintiff”), Motion to Allocate and Compel Payment of
Substitute Custodian Charges, filed on July 24, 2025 [ECF No. 52 (the “Motion”)].
THE COURT has reviewed the Report, the Motion and the Exhibits attached
thereto, Defendant Blue Sea 1, LLC’s Response in opposition to the Motion [ECF No. 56],
and the pertinent portions of the record and is otherwise fully advised.
After carefully considering the Motion and its associated briefing, Judge Valle issued
the Report, recommending that the Motion be granted.
In short, Plaintiff, who has arrested Defendant M/Y Monarch (“Vessel”), seeks to
share the costs incurred from the Substitute Custodian’s preservation and custody of the
Vessel with other parties claiming an interest in the Vessel, such as Defendant Blue Sea 1,
LLC and Defendant BMO Bank, N.A. See generally Mot.
In the Report, Judge Valle analyzed Local Admiralty Rule E(5)(b) and the Eleventh
Circuit’s opinion in Donald D. Forsht Assocs., Inc. v. Transamerica ICS, Inc., 821 F.2d 1556
Case 0:25-cv-60815-MD Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2026 Page 1 of 3

2
(11th Cir. 1987), and concluded that it would be inequitable to impose all the custodial
charges on the Plaintiff simply because he was the one to arrest the Vessel because all
stakeholders benefit from the Vessel’s continued maintenance and preservation during the
pendency of the litigation. See generally Rpt.
No party filed objections to the Report, and the time for doing so has expired. See
generally Docket. Further, Defendants Blue Sea 1, LLC (who filed the Response in
opposition to the Motion) and BMO Bank, N.A. filed Notices of Non-Objection to Judge
Valle’s Report. See ECF Nos. 72, 73.
When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has properly been objected to, district courts
must review the disposition de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely
objected, however, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face
of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee’s notes (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of
review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged Congress’s intent was to only require a de
novo review where objections have been properly filed, not when neither party objects. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to
require district court review of a magistrate [judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de
novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”).
The undersigned has reviewed the Report, the Motion and the Exhibits thereto, Blue
Sea 1, LLC’s Response, the record, and the applicable law to assure herself that no clear
error appears on the face of the record. In light of that review, the undersigned agrees with
the analysis and well-reasoned recommendations stated in Judge Valle’s Report and agrees
with Judge Valle’s conclusions. Accordingly, it is
Case 0:25-cv-60815-MD Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2026 Page 2 of 3

3
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report [ECF No. 71] is AFFIRMED
AND ADOPTED as follows:
1. 	The Motion [ECF No. 52] is GRANTED.
2. 	Defendants Blue Sea 1, LLC and BMO Bank, N.A. shall each be responsible for
one-third of the custodial charges incurred while the Vessel remains under arrest,
including reimbursement to Plaintiff of amounts already paid and contribution
toward future custodial charges during the pendency of the action.
3. 	The parties shall meet and confer to agree on a Payment Schedule, in accordance
with Judge Valle’s instruction in the Report, to be filed with this Court by
February 6, 2026.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in the Southern District of Florida this 2nd
day of February, 2026.
_________________________________
MELISSA DAMIAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: 	Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle
Counsel of Record
Case 0:25-cv-60815-MD Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2026 Page 3 of 3