Miami Marina Sues 120-Foot Yacht Double Shot and Its Owner for Breach of Contract and Unpaid Dockage Fees
Naval Logistic, Inc., doing business as Middle Point Marina in Miami, has filed a maritime lawsuit against the 120-foot motor yacht M/V Double Shot and its owner, Jetski Exotics LLC, alleging unpaid dockage fees, breach of contract, and enforcement of a maritime lien. The complaint, filed in the Southern District of Florida under Case No. 1:25-cv-23791-JB, seeks to recover over $8,800 in accrued charges and requests that the yacht be arrested and sold to satisfy the debt.
Yacht Docked for Temporary Repairs Allegedly Overstayed and Ignored Repeated Removal Requests
According to the complaint, the Double Shot was delivered to Middle Point Marina on January 15, 2025, by Rami Hakim on behalf of Jetski Exotics LLC. The vessel’s owner had entered into a written Shipyard Agreement with Naval Logistic, which provided for temporary dockage—limited to one month—while Jetski Exotics performed repairs to the yacht.
However, the marina alleges that after the agreed period elapsed, Jetski Exotics failed to remove the vessel and failed to pay the full balance due for dockage and utility services. Despite repeated demands from the marina for payment and removal of the yacht, the Double Shot remained docked at the facility as of the lawsuit’s filing date, and daily charges continued to accrue.
Dockage Charges Accruing Daily; Marina Alleges Breach of Maritime Contract for Failure to Pay
The lawsuit states that the marina charged $240 per day for dockage (at $2.00 per foot), plus $27.50 per day each for shore power and freshwater service, along with 7% sales tax—amounting to $315.65 in total daily charges. As of late August 2025, the total outstanding balance allegedly owed by Jetski Exotics is $8,808.25, with additional amounts continuing to accrue daily.
The complaint asserts that the owner of Double Shot breached the contract by:
- Failing to remove the yacht within the agreed timeframe
- Failing to pay invoiced amounts for dockage and utilities
- Ignoring multiple notices from the marina requesting payment and removal
The marina also warns that if a hurricane warning is issued, the vessel’s continued presence will prevent Middle Point Marina from accommodating other vessels with pre-arranged hurricane storage contracts, resulting in additional damages.
Marina Seeks Arrest and Judicial Sale of Yacht to Enforce Maritime Lien Under Admiralty Law
Naval Logistic, Inc. asserts that it holds a valid maritime lien for necessaries under 46 U.S.C. § 31342(a)(2), and it is pursuing an in rem action against the vessel Double Shot. The company is seeking a warrant for arrest of the yacht, her engines, tackle, equipment, and apparel under Rule C of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims.
The complaint asks the court to:
- Issue a warrant for the arrest of the Double Shot
- Allow the yacht to be sold at public auction if the amount due is not paid or secured
- Award damages, interest, costs, and attorney’s fees to the marina
Under maritime law, dockage and utilities are considered “necessaries,” and unpaid providers of such services may enforce liens directly against vessels. The lawsuit cites prior federal decisions affirming the enforceability of maritime liens for wharfage, dockage, and storage.
Yacht Owners Who Fail to Pay Dockage May Face Arrest and Public Sale of Their Vessel
This case highlights the serious legal consequences vessel owners may face when they fail to comply with marina agreements or pay for dockage and utilities. Under admiralty law, unpaid service providers may enforce liens by seizing the vessel through the U.S. Marshals Service and selling it at auction to recover damages.
If you operate a marina, yacht club, or marine service facility and are owed money for services provided to a vessel, you may be entitled to enforce a maritime lien.
Contact us now to speak with a maritime lien enforcement attorney and protect your rights under admiralty law.
Disclaimer: Our firm does not represent the plaintiff in this case and is not involved in the litigation. The information provided is a summary of allegations based on publicly available court filings. We make no representations about the truth of these allegations, are not commenting on the merits of the case, and are not predicting any outcome.
