Williams Sports Rentals Inc.

Filing 113

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 7/27/2020 GRANTING 90 Motion to lift the anti-suit injunction and stay further proceedings in admiralty. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

IN RE: COMPLAINT AND PETITION
OF WILLIAMS SPORTS RENTALS,
INC., AS OWNER OF A CERTAIN
2004 YAMAHA WAVERUNNER FX 140
FOR EXONERATION FROM OR
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

No.

2:17-cv-00653-JAM-EFB

ORDER GRANTING WILLIS’ MOTION TO
LIFT THE ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION
AND STAY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
ADMIRALTY

MARIAN LATASHA WILLIS, on
behalf of the Estate of
RAESHON WILLIAMS,
Respondent/Counter Claimant

16

v.

17

WILLIAMS SPORTS RENTALS, INC.

18

Petitioner/Counter Defendant

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

WILLIAMS SPORTS RENTALS, INC.
Petitioner, Counter
Defendant, and Third-party
Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS SMITH, KAI PETRICH,
BERKELY EXECUTIVES, INC., ZIP,
INC., and DOES 1-10
Third-party Defendants.
Following a jet ski accident that claimed the life of
Raeshon Willis, Williams Sports Rentals, Inc. (“WSR”) filed an
1

1

admiralty action under the Limitation of Liability Act

2

(“Limitation Act”), 46 U.S.C. § 30501 et seq., and Rule F of the

3

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Supplemental Rules for

4

Admiralty or Maritime Claims. ECF No. 1.

5

enjoined all other proceedings “arising out of, consequent upon,

6

or in connection with” the accident.

7

of Value, ECF No. 11; see also 46 U.S.C. § 30511(c).

As required, the Court

Order Approving Stipulation

8

Willis then requested the Court dissolve its injunction so

9

she could join WSR in a suit pending in Alameda County Superior

10

Court—a request this Court twice denied.

11

Ultimately, the Court dismissed Willis’ counterclaims against

12

WSR.

13

adjudicate, the Court granted WSR’s motion for exoneration.

14

Nos. 76, 77; see also Tr. of 7/30/19 Proceedings, ECF No. 83.

15

See Nov. 26, 2020 USCA Memo. At 3, ECF No. 88; see also Dec. 18,

16

2020 USCA Mandate, ECF No. 89.

17

Dec. 15, 2017 Order, ECF No. 61.

WSR’s victory was short-lived.

ECF Nos. 56, 77.

Finding nothing left to
ECF

Granting Willis’ writ of

18

mandamus, the Ninth Circuit revived Willis’ negligent entrustment

19

claim and remanded the case with instructions.

20

USCA Memo. at 3-4.

21

dissolve the anti-suit injunction and advised that the Court “may

22

wish to reconsider whether to stay the proceedings until Willis’

23

liability claim against WSR is adjudicated in state court.”

24

at 3 (citing Newton v. Shipman, 718 F.2d 959, 961 (9th Cir.

25

1983)).

26

injunction and stay further proceedings, likewise urging the

27

Court to stay this action pending resolution of the state court

Nov. 26, 2020

The Court of Appeals directed this Court to

Id.

On remand, Willis filed a motion to lift the anti-suit

28
2

1

proceedings.1

2

101.

3
4

ECF No. 90.

WSR opposed Willis’ motion.

Willis then filed a reply.

ECF No.

ECF No. 107.

For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants Willis’
motion.

5

I.

BACKGROUND

6

The parties are familiar with the facts of this case.

7

Court need not recite them here, except as is useful in reaching

8

the disposition.

9

II.

The

OPINION

10

A.

Judicial Notice

11

WSR requests judicial notice of: (1) Willis’ admission that

12

her claims against WSR do not arise under California law, and

13

(2) Sentinel Insurance Company’s motion to intervene in this

14

proceeding.

15

Federal Rule of Evidence 201 permits a court to “judicially

16

notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because

17

it (1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial

18

jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined

19

from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”

20

FRE 201(b).

21

“court filings and other matters of public record.”

22

Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th

23

Cir. 2006).

24
25

Request for Judicial Notice by WSR, ECF No. 108.

To this end, a court may take judicial notice of
Reyn’s

Willis’ admission and Sentinel’s motion to intervene, ECF
No. 104, are both proper subjects of judicial notice.

The Court

26
27
28

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was
scheduled for June 16, 2020.
3
1

1

therefore GRANTS WSR’s request.

2

B.

Subject-matter Jurisdiction

3

WSR’s opposition brief raises questions about whether

4

admiralty jurisdiction exists in this case.

5

clarify: it does.

6

Opp’n at 8.

To

A party invoking admiralty tort jurisdiction must prove

7

that: (1) the alleged tort occurred upon navigable waters; (2)

8

the alleged tort had the potential to disrupt maritime commerce;

9

and (3) the general character of the activity giving rise to the

10

tort had a substantial relationship to traditional maritime

11

activity.

12

527, 534, 538-40 (1995).

13

for the purpose of determining admiralty jurisdiction is the

14

place where the injury occurs.”

15

v. U.S., 401 F.3d 1080, 1084 (9th Cir. 2004)).

16

rented its jet skis on the shore, Willis’ death occurred on the

17

waters of Lake Tahoe.

18

alleged tort therefore occurred upon navigable waters.

19

U.S., 185 F.2d 938, 943 (9th Cir. 1950) (“[T]he waters of Lake

20

Tahoe are navigable waters of the United States.”)

21

Grubart v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S.
As Willis argues, “the situs of a tort

Reply at 3 (quoting Taghadomi
Although WSR

Sec. Am. Compl. (“SAC”), ECF No. 46.

The

Davis v.

Moreover, the alleged tort had the potential to disrupt

22

maritime commerce.

This inquiry focuses not “on what happened

23

in this particular case but on whether the general features of

24

the incident have a potentially disruptive effect.”

25

Mission Bay, 70 F.3d at 1129 (emphasis in original) (citing

26

Jerome B. Grubart, Inc., 513 U.S. 527, 533 (1995); Sisson v.

27

Ruby, 497 U.S. 358, 363 (1990); Foremost Ins. Co. v. Richardson,

28

457 U.S. 668, 675 (1982)).

In re

Similar to this case, In re Mission
4

1

Bay involved two women who suffered serious injuries after

2

falling off the back of a jet-propelled personal watercraft.

3

570 F.3d at 1125.

4

on maritime commerce, the Ninth Circuit found the incident was

5

“best described as harm by a vessel in navigable waters to a

6

passenger.”

7

of this class could have a potentially disruptive impact” on

8

maritime commerce.

9

which a passenger goes over board . . . would likely stop to

10

search and rescue, call for assistance from others . . . and

11

ensnarl maritime traffic in the lanes affected.”

12

similarity of Willis’s accident to the one in In re Mission Bay,

13

the Court finds this case satisfies the “potential to disrupt

14

maritime commerce” requirement.

15

In assessing the tort’s potential disruption

Id. at 1129.

Id.

The Ninth Circuit held “an incident

“Among other things, a vessel from

Id.

Given the

Finally, the Court finds the general character of the

16

activity giving rise to the tort bears a substantial

17

relationship to traditional maritime activity.

18

implicitly acknowledges, this factor requires the Court to first

19

identify “the activity giving rise to the tort.”

20

n.1; Reply at 3-4.

21

entrustment action, the activity giving rise to this tort was

22

WSR’s “shoreside rental of watersports equipment.”

23

n.1.

24

Inc. (“In re Blue Water Boating”), 786 Fed. Appx 703 (9th Cir.

25

Dec. 4, 2019), WSR argues shoreside rentals lack the requisite

26

“maritime flavor” to trigger a court’s admiralty jurisdiction.

27

Id.

28

unpublished decision.

As WSR

See Opp’n at 8

WSR contends that, as a negligent

Opp’n at 8

Citing In re Complaint & Petition of Blue Water Boating

This argument oversimplifies the Ninth Circuit’s recent

5

1

In re Blue Water Boating involved a Santa Barbara company’s

2

rental of a standup paddle board.

The company filed a

3

limitation action after a renter fell off a paddle board and

4

drowned.

5

dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction.

6

Blue Water Boating, Inc. v. Mubanda, No. CV 18-1231-JFW (ASx),

7

2018 WL 6075356, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2018).

8

Circuit affirmed the district court, finding that standup-

9

paddle-board rentals lacked a “close[] relat[ion] to activity

786 Fed. Appx. at 703-04.

The district court
See Complaint of

The Ninth

10

traditionally subject to admiralty law.”

11

Gruver v. Lesman Fisheries, Inc., 489 F.3d 978, 983 (9th Cir.

12

2007)) (modifications in original).

13

Id. at 705 (quoting

The district court decision provides an even more detailed

14

discussion of the issue.

See Complaint of Blue Water Boating,

15

Inc., 2018 WL 6075356, at *4.

16

the relationship between rental companies and traditional

17

maritime activity, but on the relationship between standup

18

paddle boards and traditional maritime activity.

19

Comparing paddle board use to activities like swimming and

20

surfing, the court found that “the relationship between the

21

innocent operation of [stand-up paddle boards] and traditional

22

maritime activity [was] virtually non-existent.”

23

Exec. Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, 409 U.S.

24

249, (1972) (swimming-based torts lack a substantial

25

relationship to traditional maritime activity); Spencer v.

26

Lunada Bay Boys, No. CV 16-02129 SJO (RAOx), 2016 WL 6818757, at

27

* (C.D. Cal. July 22, 2016) (torts committed by individuals on

28

surfboards lack a substantial relationship to traditional

This discussion focused, not on

6

See id.

Id.; see also

1

maritime activity).

2

rejected the argument that the paddle used while paddle boarding

3

made it more like a vessel, i.e., “a kayak or a rowboat,” than a

4

surfboard.

5

In doing so, the district court expressly

Id.

Like the Central District of California, this Court finds

6

that the pressing consideration in this analysis is what WSR was

7

renting, not that WSR was renting it.

8

personal watercrafts.

9

maritime activity and WSR’s rental of personal watercrafts for

WSR rents jet skis—

The relationship between traditional

10

use on navigable waters is undeniable.

11

U.S.A. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199, 201-02 (1996) (exercising

12

admiralty jurisdiction over suit involving a jet ski accident);

13

In re Mission Bay, (“Being a vessel, this jet ski has a maritime

14

connection.”); Rigsbee v. City and County of Honolulu, No. 17-

15

cv-00532 HG-KSC, 2018 WL 5017610, at *3 (D. Haw. Oct. 16, 2018)

16

(“Accidents involving jet skis are substantially related to

17

maritime activities.”).

18
19

See Yamaha Motor Corp.,

The Court finds this suit falls within its admiralty
jurisdiction.

20

C.

Anti-suit Injunction

21

The Ninth Circuit instructed this Court to dissolve its

22

previously issued anti-suit injunction.

See Dec. 18, 2019 USCA

23

Mandate.

24

allowing Willis’ state court suit to go forward, urging the

25

Court to place limitations on those proceedings.

26

8-9.

27

will prejudice WSR’s limitation rights has become an unending

28

carousel.

WSR nonetheless continues to litigate the propriety of

See Opp’n at

The question of whether Willis’ state court proceedings

See Tr. of 8/29/17 Proceedings at 39: 6-40:16, ECF
7

1

No. 44; Apr. 25, 2018 USCA Memo. at 3, ECF No. 69; Tr. of

2

7/30/19 Proceedings at 24:6-9; Nov. 26, 2019 USCA Memo. at 2-3.

3

The Court declines WSR’s invitation to take another ride.

4

The Ninth Circuit’s instruction to dissolve the anti-suit

5

injunction was unequivocal.

See Dec. 18, 2019 USCA Mandate.

6

This Court takes the Ninth Circuit’s mandate to mean what it

7

says; no more, no less.

8

any intervening changes in circumstance have, as WSR argues,

9

mooted the Ninth Circuit’s instructions.

Moreover, the Court does not find that

Contra Opp’n at 3-4.

10

The Court therefore dissolves its previously issued anti-suit

11

injunction.

12

D.

Stay

13

In Limitation Actions, district courts may exercise their

14

discretion in deciding “whether the limitation question must

15

await trial of the liability issue.”

16

F.2d 959, 963 (9th Cir. 1983).

17

court should select the most efficient manner of proceeding.”

18

Id.

19

most efficient course of action in single-claimant cases such as

20

this one.

21

541-42 (1931).

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Newton v. Shipman, 718

Ultimately, “[t]he district

Willis argues the Langnes rule of abstention prescribes the

Mot. at 3-4 (citing Langnes v. Green, 282 U.S. 531,
Under this rule:

[T]he district court permits proceedings in state
court to go forward on the question of liability and
retains jurisdiction over any question that might
arise as to the shipowner's right to limit his
liability. If the shipowner either (1) wins in the
state court or (2) loses, but only in an amount less
than the value of his ship and its cargo, then the
need for further proceedings in federal court is
obviated. If the shipowner is found liable for more
than the value of his ship and its cargo in the state
action, further proceedings in the federal limitation
action may be necessary, but only where the claimant
contests the limitation.
8

1

See Mot. at 4 (quoting In re Complaint of McCarthy Bros., 83 F.3d

2

828 (7th Cir. 1996).

3

WSR disagrees that adhering to the Langnes rule would yield

4

maximum efficiency here—namely, because the matter would get to

5

trial more quickly if left in federal court.

6

on the assumption that, absent a stay, this Court would hold a

7

pretrial conference hearing in this case on September 11, 2020

8

“with a bench trial shortly to follow.”

9

assumption is no longer valid.

This argument rests

Opp’n at 10.

That

The Sacramento federal courthouse

10

is currently closed to the public until further notice.

11

General Order 618 (May 13, 2020).

12

cases will take priority.

13

Court finds little value in speculating as to when this matter

14

would go to trial absent a stay.

15

argument does not persuade the Court to depart from the practice

16

set forth in Langnes, 282 U.S. at 541-42.

17

stays further proceedings in admiralty pending the completion of

18

Willis’ suit in state court.

19
20

When trials resume, criminal

Given these unprecedented times, the

III.

But suffice it to say, WSR’s

The Court therefore

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Willis’s

21

motion to lift the anti-suit injunction and stay further

22

proceedings in admiralty.

23
24

See

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 27, 2020

25
26
27
28
9