Briem et al v. Holiday Water Sports Ft Myers Beach, Inc. et al
Filing
26
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 23 Defendant, Jake Graddy's, Motion for Stay and, Alternatively, Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. Defendant Jake Graddy shall have up to and including November 8, 2018 to respond to the First Amended Complaint. Defendant's request to stay the proceedings as to him is denied without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 11/1/2018. (APH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
IN ADMIRALTY
MARIA BRIEM and TORSTEN
BRIEM,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No: 2:18-cv-301-FtM-99CM
HOLIDAY WATER SPORTS FT
MYERS BEACH, INC. and JACK
LNU,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Defendant, Jake Graddy’s,
Motion for Stay and, Alternatively, Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint filed on October 19, 2018. Doc. 23. Plaintiffs
filed a response in opposition on October 24, 2018. Doc. 24. For the reasons stated
below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiffs Maria and Torstem Briem filed this case against Defendants Holiday
Water Sports Ft. Myers Beach, Inc. (“Holiday Water Sports”) and Jack LNU, later
identified as Jake Graddy (“Graddy”), seeking damages for breach of contract,
personal injuries, medical expenses and loss of consortium under federal maritime
and Florida law. Doc. 8 ¶¶ 1-2. Plaintiffs allege Holiday Water Sports and its tour
guide, Graddy, are liable for injuries sustained by Mrs. Briem on April 27, 2015 while
using one of Holiday Water Sports’ wave runners on a guided tour in the waters near
Fort Myers Beach, Florida. Id. ¶¶ 20-41. Among other allegations, Plaintiffs claim
Graddy negligently abandoned them to ride the wave runner without supervision
before the guided tour was over, resulting in Mrs. Briem injuring herself. Id. ¶ 16.
On October 9, 2018, Holiday Water Sports filed a Verified Complaint for Exoneration
from or for Limitation of Liability (“Limitation Action”) under 46 U.S.C. § 30501 et.
seq. related to the April 27, 2015 incident and its wave runner. In re Holiday Water
Sports Ft. Myers Beach, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-663-UA-CM, Doc. 1.
In filing the Limitation Action, Holiday Water Sports seeks to limit its liability
for the incident that occurred on April 27, 2015 to the value of its wave runner, which
it estimates is $7,601. Id., Doc. 4 at 2. In that case, on October 11, 2018, the Court
granted Holiday Water Sports’ Motion for Entry of Order for Stipulation of Value,
Monition, and Injunction, which stayed pending proceedings against Holiday Water
Sports, its wave runner and any other property arising from claims related to the
April 27, 2015 incident. See id., Doc. 7 at 4.
In the present motion, Graddy requests that the Court stay this case as to him
or, in the alternative, grant him a two-week extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs’
First Amended Complaint, until November 2, 2018. Doc. 23 at 1-3. Graddy states
he was served with the Amended Complaint on September 28, 2018, and his attorneys
filed their notice of appearance on October 16, 2018. Id. at 1. Plaintiffs respond
that Holiday Water Sports has yet to publish notice of the Limitation Action or serve
the pleadings on known potential claimants, including Plaintiffs; thus, Graddy’s
-2-
request for a stay as to him is premature.1 Doc. 24 at 1-2. Plaintiffs also assert
Graddy does not have standing to request to have any stay imposed extended to
claims against him individually.
Id. at 2.
Plaintiffs oppose the requested
extension to respond to the Amended Complaint because Graddy failed to confer with
Plaintiffs and because Graddy’s counsel also represents Holiday Water Sports in this
case and does not need an extension as counsel is already familiar with the facts.
See id. at 4-5.
Under the Shipowner’s Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30501 et. seq.,
the owner of a vessel may seek to limit its liability for an incident involving the vessel
to the vessel’s value by bringing a limitation action in district court. See 46 U.S.C.
§§ 30505(a), 30511(a).2 Individuals asserting the owner’s liability for the incident
may then file claims in the action, and a claimant can defeat the owner’s limitation
action if the claimant can show the incident occurred with “the privity or knowledge
of the owner.” Id. § 30505(b). When the owner of a vessel brings a limitation action
and complies with all procedural requirements, “all [other] claims and proceedings
against the owner related to the matter in question shall cease.” Id. § 30511(c). “In
both the statute and the rule, reference is made repeatedly and uniformly to the
owner of a vessel and not to any other class of individual or entity.” In re Kirby
1
Plaintiffs note that the deadline for filing claims in the Limitation Action is
November 28, 2018. Doc. 24 at 2 n.2.
2
The procedures for a limitation action are also set forth in Supplemental Admiralty
and Maritime Claims Rule F.
-3-
Inland Marine, L.P., No. 13-0319-WS-C, 2013 WL 4016363, at *2 (S.D. Ala. Aug. 6,
2013).
Although the language of the statute only references a stay in relation to a
vessel owner, some courts have stayed direct actions against non-vessel owners while
a related limitation action is pending, including actions against officers/employees of
the vessel owner. See, e.g., Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cushing, 347 U.S. 409 (1954);
Guillot v. Cenac Towing Co., 366 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1966); In re: Complaint of
Paradise Holdings, Inc., 795 F.2d 756 (9th Cir. 1986). The rationales for allowing a
stay as to a direct action against a non-owner include the risk of inconsistent results
and collateral estoppel between the limitation action and the direct action.
See
Guillot, 366 F.2d at 906 (direct action against owner’s officers “trespasses upon the
exclusive domain of the Admiralty in adjudicating whether the quality of the actions
of the . . . officers is such as to charge the . . . shipowner with privity and knowledge
of them”); In re Kirby, 2013 WL 4016363, at * 2 (“due to the close relation between
owner and . . . officer, res judicata and/or collateral estoppel could bar the owner from
contesting privity and knowledge in the limitation action”).
Here, Plaintiffs allege Holiday Water Sports and its Tour Guide, Graddy, are
liable for the incident that occurred April 27, 2015. Doc. 8 ¶¶20-41. Plaintiffs and
all other potential claimants have until November 28, 2018, to file claims in the
Limitation Action. No. 2:18-cv-663-UA-CM, Doc. 7 at 3. Whether Plaintiffs file a
claim and the assertions underlying their potential claim that the incident occurred
with the privity and knowledge of Holiday Water Sports may bear on Graddy’s
-4-
request for a stay. See In re Kirby, 2013 WL 4016363, at * 2; Doc. 24 at 2 n.2.
Specifically, depending on the contents of Plaintiffs’ potential claim, there may be
issues between this case and the Limitation Action regarding inconsistent results
and/or collateral estoppel. See Guillot, 366 F.2d at 906. The Court is unable to
determine the appropriateness of a stay as to Graddy without the benefit of
comparing Plaintiffs’ potential claim in the Limitation Action with the Amended
Complaint in this case, however. Thus, the request to stay the proceedings as to
Graddy personally will be denied without prejudice to Graddy re-filing, if necessary,
after the November 28, 2018 deadline to file claims in the Limitation Action has
passed.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED:
Defendant, Jake Graddy’s, Motion for Stay and, Alternatively, Motion for
Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (Doc. 23) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant Jake Graddy shall have up to
and including November 8, 2018 to respond to the Amended Complaint.
Defendant’s request to stay the proceedings as to him is DENIED without prejudice.
-5-
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 1st day of November,
2018.
Copies:
Counsel of record
-6-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?