Diane Goodwin v. Blaine E. Woods et al

Filing 26

ORDER HOLDING SERVICE IN ABEYANCE AND TO SHOW CAUSE RE: LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: On September 4, 2015, in response to the Courts Order (ECF No. 21), Plaintiff Diane Goodwin requested that the Court hold service on Defendant Az ure Seas in abeyance for ninety days. (ECF No. 25.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs request, and shall hold service in abeyance for thirty days. On or before October 28, 2015, Plaintiff must either move to arrest the vessel, or must show cause, in writing, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (lc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

DIANE GOODWIN,
Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 2:14-cv-07210-ODW(AS)

v.

ORDER HOLDING SERVICE IN

14

BLAINE E. WOODS; VIRGINIA M.

ABEYANCE AND TO SHOW

15

BROWN; AZURE SEAS, in rem,

CAUSE RE: LACK OF

Defendants.

16

PROSECUTION

17

I.

18

INTRODUCTION

19

On September 4, 2015, in response to the Court’s Order (ECF No. 21), Plaintiff

20

Diane Goodwin requested that the Court hold service on Defendant Azure Seas in

21

abeyance for ninety days. (ECF No. 25.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court

22

GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s request, and shall hold service in abeyance for thirty

23

days. On or before October 28, 2015, Plaintiff must either move to arrest the vessel,

24

or must show cause, in writing, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of

25

prosecution.

26

II.

BACKGROUND

27

On July 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed this action in the United States District Court

28

for the Southern District of California. Plaintiff alleges that she was a passenger

1

aboard the vessel Azure Seas when she fell and injured herself.

(Compl. ¶ 6.)

2

Plaintiff named the vessel’s captain (Blaine Woods) and the vessel’s owner (Virginia

3

Brown) as in personam defendants, and named the vessel Azure Seas as an in rem

4

defendant. (Id. ¶¶ 2–5.) On January 17, 2013, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her

5

claims against Woods and Brown. (ECF No. 6.) On March 8, 2013, the court held

6

service on the Azure Seas in abeyance. (ECF No. 9.) However, on April 25, 2014,

7

the court declined to continue holding service in abeyance. (ECF No. 11.)

8

On August 25, 2014, Plaintiff moved to transfer this case to the Central District

9

of California. (ECF No. 13.) Because service of process in in rem maritime actions

10

can be effected only in the judicial district in which the action is pending, Fed. R. Civ.

11

P. E(3)(a), and because the vessel moved from Oceanside, California, to Santa

12

Barbara, California, while the action was pending, Plaintiff argued that it was

13

necessary to transfer this action to the Central District. The court granted Plaintiff’s

14

motion, and the matter was transferred to this Court. (ECF No. 14.)

15

On December 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a parallel action in state court against the

16

same defendants. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff’s counsel has since dismissed Woods from

17

that action because they could not locate and serve him. (Id.) Brown passed away in

18

2014, and an amended complaint naming her heirs was filed in December 2014. (Id.)

19

However, to date, Plaintiff has been unable to serve Brown’s heirs. (Id.) Plaintiff

20

represents that she intends to dismiss the state court action if she cannot serve the

21

heirs prior to September 2016. (Id.)

22

III.

DISCUSSION

23

It appears to the Court that this matter is languishing without any meaningful

24

attempts to bring it to conclusion. Although the courts must hold the “[i]ssuance and

25

delivery of process in rem . . . in abeyance if the plaintiff so requests,” Fed. R. Civ. P.

26

E(3)(b), this applies only where (1) the vessel is outside the court’s jurisdiction and

27

(2) “it is clear that the vessel will be within the Court’s jurisdiction ‘shortly.’”

28

Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. v. USNS Truckee, 629 F. Supp. 779, 781 (E.D.

2

1

Va. 1985); see also Internatio-Rotterdam, Inc. v. Thomsen, 218 F.2d 514, 515 (4th

2

Cir. 1955). Here, the Azure Seas was apparently “docked for many years” in

3

Oceanside, California, while this matter was venued in the Southern District of

4

California. (ECF No. 13.) The vessel is now docked in Santa Barbara, California.

5

(Id.) There is no reason why service could not have been effected on the vessel by

6

now.
Plaintiff’s explanation for not serving the vessel is unpersuasive.

7

Plaintiff

8

argues that she is attempting to prosecute the state court action against the in

9

personam defendants first so as not to interrupt the business operations of the vessel’s

10

owners by arresting the vessel.1 (ECF No. 25.) However, it appears that the state

11

court matter has stalled while Plaintiff attempts to serve Brown’s heirs, and Plaintiff

12

provides no evidence that she has been diligent in those attempts. Moreover, it would

13

seem that this is the precise situation where a prejudgment maritime lien on the vessel

14

would provide a plaintiff with critical leverage in pursuing maritime tort claims. See

15

Merchants Nat. Bank of Mobile v. Dredge Gen. G. L. Gillespie, 663 F.2d 1338, 1345

16

(5th Cir. 1981) (noting that maritime torts give rise to maritime liens); Riffe Petroleum

17

Co. v. Cibro Sales Corp., 601 F.2d 1385, 1389 (10th Cir. 1979) (noting that maritime

18

lien arises “automatically” at the same time the cause of action arises). Plaintiff’s

19

counsel should concern themselves with the diligent prosecution of their client’s

20

claims rather than with the business interests of the vessel’s owners. Plaintiff cannot

21

sit on this case just because it is an in rem action.

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27
28

1

In maritime cases, in rem service is effected by arresting the vessel. Fed. R. Civ. P. E(3).

3

IV.

1

CONCLUSION

2

The Court will hold service in abeyance for thirty days from the date of this

3

Order. However, on or before October 28, 2015, Plaintiff must either move to arrest

4

the vessel, or must show cause, in writing, why this action should not be dismissed for

5

lack of prosecution. No hearing will be held. The Court cautions Plaintiff that, absent

6

an exceptionally compelling reason, the Court will dismiss the action if Plaintiff has

7

not moved to arrest the vessel by that date.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 25, 2015

11
12
13

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4