A salvage company that is suing to obtain the title of a 125-year-old shipwreck off Bar Harbor is now suing the National Park Service.
The company, JJM LLC, is suing the National Park Service and Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places, Joy Beasley, after she designated the shipwreck to be eligible for inclusion on the list. The lawsuit was filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court of Maine in Bangor.
The ship, Delhi, sank in the 1890s with a cargo load of stone pavers that are still aboard the wreck, the company said previously.
As the keeper of the register, Beasley makes the final decision and now the only way for the designation to be reviewed is through a lawsuit, the company said in court filings.
The company wants a judge to say Beasley’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious,” overturn the eligibility for the list and stop Beasley from making a decision until there has been fact finding in the lawsuit.
This is the second lawsuit filed by JJM related to the shipwreck as it seeks to obtain ownership of the Delhi. The salvage company’s lawsuit to obtain the title for Delhi is still pending. The state of Maine has contested that lawsuit, saying that federal law has established that unclaimed shipwrecks lying in state waters are the property of the state.
The designation for eligibility on the National Register of Historic Places means JJM cannot continue a lawsuit to claim the title of the sunken ship that is within “six nautical miles of Bar Harbor.”
The new lawsuit said the state of Maine submitted the shipwreck to the register for consideration without giving JJM notice and time to respond. When the first lawsuit was filed, Delhi was not deemed eligible for the register.
Separate experts hired by JJM and the state came to different conclusions about the shipwreck’s current state, the lawsuit said.
While the first lawsuit was ongoing, Maine’s State Historic Preservation Officer submitted Delhi for consideration for the national register without notifying JJM, the lawsuit said. The state’s application only had facts from the state’s expert.
The company didn’t have the chance to provide information from its expert, the lawsuit said.
