Sikousis Legacy Inc. v. B-Gas Limited

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 10 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SIKOUSIS LEGACY INC., No. 24-5272 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:22-cv-03273-CRB K INVESTMENTS INC.; BAHLA BEAUTY, INC., MEMORANDUM* Intervenor-Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. B-GAS LIMITED, a/k/a Bepalo LPG Shipping Ltd.; B-GAS AS; BERGSHAV SHIPPING LTD.; B-GAS HOLDING LTD.; BERGSHAV AFRAMAX LTD.; BERGSHAV SHIPHOLDING AS; BERGSHAV INVEST AS; LPG INVEST AS; ATLE BERGSHAVEN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 22, 2025 San Francisco, California * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Before: CLIFTON, OWENS, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Plaintiff-Appellants Sikousis Legacy, Inc., K Investments, Inc., and Bahla Beauty, Inc. (collectively, “Sikousis”) appeal the district court’s denial of their Rule 60(b)(5) motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Sikousis sought relief from the vacatur of a prejudgment attachment under Rule B of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims, and from a judgment of dismissal of the case. We affirm. 1. We first address our subject-matter jurisdiction. See Herklotz v. Parkinson, 848 F.3d 894, 897 (9th Cir. 2017). Subject-matter jurisdiction in in rem or in quasi in rem cases depends on continued personal jurisdiction over the res. See United States v. 66 Pieces of Jade & Gold Jewelry, 760 F.2d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 1985); Overby v. Gordon, 177 U.S. 214, 221 (1900). Defendant-Appellee Bergshav Aframax Ltd. (“Aframax”) claims there is no longer personal jurisdiction over the res here. Aframax argues that the exhaustion of direct appeals in Sikousis Legacy, Inc. v. B-Gas Ltd., 97 F.4th 622 (9th Cir. 2024), necessarily vacated personal jurisdiction over the res. We disagree. A federal court’s quasi in rem jurisdiction depends on whether the res was properly attached at the beginning of suit, unless the res is voluntarily released or any judgment would be “useless” because the res is outside the court’s or any litigant’s control. See Ventura Packers, Inc. v. F/V Jeanine Kathleen, 424 2 24-5272 F.3d 852, 860-61 (9th Cir. 2005). In this case, the vessel M/T Berica was properly attached at the start of proceedings and was substituted by a letter of understanding with no express termination date. Given this, Ventura Packers confirms our continued subject-matter jurisdiction. For the same reasons, this case is not moot because relief could still be provided through the substitute res. 2. The district court denied the Rule 60(b)(5) motion because it ruled that the vacatur order could not be applied “prospectively.” But because of a change in circumstances in the case, we need not review the correctness of that decision. See Afewerki v. Anaya L. Grp., 868 F.3d 771, 777 (9th Cir. 2017) (“We may affirm on any basis supported by the record.”) (simplified). Sikousis’s motion was based entirely on factual findings made by a Norwegian district court after the dismissal order. But a Norwegian appellate court later reversed the Norwegian district court’s judgment. Thus, the premise of the Rule 60(b)(5) motion has been invalidated. See Ornellas v. Oakley, 618 F.2d 1351, 1356 (9th Cir. 1980) (“A reversed or dismissed judgment cannot serve as the basis for a disposition on the ground of res judicata or collateral estoppel.”). And as the district court pointed out, though the evidence underlying those findings might have supported a motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2), Sikousis is time-barred from bringing such a motion because more than a year has passed since the orders it is challenging. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Given these events, we see no basis to grant a Rule 60(b)(5) motion. 3 24-5272  We thus AFFIRM the district court’s denial of the Rule 60(b)(5) motion. We also DENY the motion to dismiss, Dkt. 41, and DENY as moot the motion to supplement the record, Dkt. 13. Each side to bear its own costs. 4 24-5272