In the Matter of Majestic Blue Fisheries, LLC
Filing
207
Order denying 178 Motion to Compel Arbitration or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joaquin V.E. Manibusan, Jr. on 6/11/2014. (fad, )
1
2
3
4
5
DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM
6
TERRITORY OF GUAM
7
8
9
10
11
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner.
)
_______________________________________)
IN THE MATTER OF MAJESTIC BLUE
FISHERIES, LLC, AS OWNER OF THE
F/V MAJESTIC BLUE PETITIONING
FOR EXONERATION FROM OR
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY,
CIVIL CASE NO. 11-00032
ORDER
12
13
The court heard Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Arbitration of this action against
14
Claimant Esther Yang or in the alternative for Summary Judgment on May 28, 2014. At the
15
conclusion of the hearing, the court took the matter under advisement. Having read the moving
16
papers, the memoranda in opposition, the reply and having further heard from counsel of both
17
parties, the court hereby enters its decision and order with regard to the said motion.
18
BACKGROUND
19
On December 9, 2010, Petitioner, the owner of the fishing vessel Majestic Blue, filed a
20
complaint1 for exoneration and limitation of liability in this court. Therein, Petitioner sought to
21
limit its liability under 46 U.S.C.A. § 30505, for all damages occasioned by the sinking of its
22
vessel the Majestic Blue on June 10, 2010. Two of the vessel’s crew members, Captain David
23
Hill and Chief Engineer Chang Yang, lost their lives when the vessel sank.
24
On February 24, 2012, the Clerk of Court gave Notice to all parties of the action brought
25
by Petitioner for exoneration from or limitation of its liability. The Notice directed all claimants
26
desiring to contest the right to exoneration or limitation of liability to file an answer to the
27
petition by March 30, 2012. Claimant Amy Hill filed an answer to the petition on March 30 and
28
1
See Civil Case No. 10-032.
1
claimed her right to entitlement to the limitation fund. Claimant Esther Yang filed an answer to
2
the petition on June 14, 2013 and also claimed her right to entitlement to the limitation fund.
On October 1, 2013, the parties stipulated to allow the late claim2 filed by Esther Yang.
3
4
In the stipulation, the parties agreed that Petitioner’s consent to allow a late claim was not a
5
waiver of any of its defenses to the claim or “any argument made or yet to be made in support of
6
Petitioner’s motion to continue trial.”
7
On October 30, 2013, the parties agreed to submit this matter for trial on documents and
8
exhibits which the parties agreed to in lieu of the presentation of live testimony. The stipulation
9
also required the court not to consider any other matter not previously agreed to by the parties.
10
The court thereafter approved the stipulation.
11
12
The trial was therefore to move forward with the court based upon the agreed-to written
submissions alone, and no others.
13
The trial occurred herein on November 18, 2013 and concluded on the same date.
14
On February 12, 2014, Petitioner filed its Motion to Compel Arbitration or in the
15
alternative for Summary Judgment against Claimant Esther Yang. On February 26, Claimant
16
Yang moved to strike the motion. On March 10, Petitioner opposed the motion to strike.
17
On April 1, 2014, the court denied the motion to strike and ordered Yang to file an
18
opposition to the motion. By agreement of the parties, Yang filed her opposition3 on April 22.
19
Petitioner requested the court additional time to respond to the opposition and thus it filed its
20
reply on May 21, 2014. The court heard oral arguments on May 28, 2014.
21
DISCUSSION
22
23
Petitioner’s motion to compel Yang to arbitrate this matter and alternatively for
Summary Judgment are based upon the following facts:
24
2
At a prior hearing, the court had observed that Yang had filed a late claim and did not
allow her to participate in that proceeding. The court noted that Claimant Yang needed to file a
26 motion to allow the filing of a late claim or in the alternative to obtain a stipulation from
Petitioner.
27
3
Yang was granted leave to file up to 45 pages in her response brief from the 20-page
28 memoranda limit set forth in Local Rule 7.1(g).
25
Page -2-
1
1. Chang Yang entered into an employment contract with Majestic Blue on March 23,
2
2010 to work on board the vessel as its Chief Engineer. The employment contract had an
3
arbitration agreement. Yang died during the course of his employment when the Majestic Blue
4
sank in the Pacific Ocean on June 10, 2010.
5
6
2. On July 23, 2010, Claimant Esther Yang entered into a Settlement Agreement with
Majestic Blue in which she received 230,846,227 Korean Won for the death of her husband.
7
3. The Settlement Agreement included a provision that the family will not file any civil
8
or criminal suit as a result of the accident. The family also agreed not to disclose any details of
9
the agreement.
10
11
4. On June 14,2013, Esther Yang filed a claim in this action for the death of her
husband.
12
It is Petitioner’s contention that Yang’s claims herein are subject to resolution by
13
arbitration. This is premised upon Paragraph 8 of its employment agreement with Yang which
14
contained a mandatory binding arbitration clause. All claims that conceivably could be
15
arbitrated including claims for death were included in Paragraph 8.
16
As an alternative, Petitioner requests the court to dismiss Yang’s claim for entitlement
17
with respect to the Limitation Fund based upon her execution of a Settlement Agreement with
18
Petitioner in which she received 230,846,227 Korean Won.
19
In her opposition, Yang asserts that Petitioner waived its right to arbitration by availing
20
itself of the special limitation of liability proceeding and by its failure to give notice to Yang
21
that she and her children might have certain rights, including arbitration, against Petitioner and
22
by its failure to provide her with notice of this limitation action as required by Supp. R. F (4).
23
Yang also challenges the validity of the employment contract her husband executed and asserts
24
that the arbitration provision is void as a matter of public policy.
25
With regard to the Settlement Agreement, Yang argues that Petitioner failed to meet its
26
heavy burden in showing that the Settlement Agreement was executed freely, without deception
27
and coercion, and with a full understanding of her rights.
28
When asked by the court whether its motion was timely made, Petitioner responded that
Page -3-
1
it had not waived any defenses it had against Yang by its agreement to allow her late filing. It
2
appears to the court that Petitioner did reserve its right to file upcoming dispositive motions in
3
which it could raise its defenses against Yang since the deadline previously set by the court for
4
filing dispositive motions had already passed. Thus, Petitioner was not bound or held to any
5
deadline for filing motions in relation to its defenses to Yang’s claim other than those set forth
6
in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
7
In determining whether Petitioner’s motion was timely filed, the court takes notice of the
8
provisions of Rule 12(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 12 (h)(2), a party
9
must raise a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or any legal defense to a
10
claim no later than at trial. In Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 126 S. Ct. 1235 (2006),
11
the U.S. Supreme Court stated that an objection that a complaint fails to state a claim for relief
12
may not be asserted post-trial. Such an objection endured only up to trial on the merits of the
13
case and not beyond. “A defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
14
granted...may be made in any pleading...or by motion for judgment on the pleadings, or at trial
15
on the merits. Cf. Kontrick, 540 U.S., at 459, 124 S. Ct. 906.”
16
Plaintiff Jenifer Arbaugh filed claims of sex discrimination against Defendant Y & H
17
Corporation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Louisiana law in the Eastern
18
District of Louisiana on November 18, 2001. The matter was tried before a jury on October 28
19
and 29, 2002. The jury rendered a verdict for Arbaugh and judgment was entered accordingly.
20
On November 9, 2002, Y & H Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the action contending that
21
it did not qualify as an employer under the Act since it did not employ fifteen or more
22
employees in either 2000 or 2001. The trial court granted Y & H’s motion concluding it had no
23
subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The U.S.
24
Supreme Court reversed and held that the employee-numerosity requirement for establishing the
25
employer’s status was an element of Arbaugh’s claim for relief, whose satisfaction was
26
conceded when Y & H Corporation did not challenge it prior to the trial on the merits.
27
///
28
///
Page -4-
The motion4 brought by Petitioner is one that does not challenges the subject-matter
1
2
jurisdiction of this court. The motion relates to the ability of Claimant Yang to obtain the relief
3
which she seeks in her claim, i.e., the ability to contest the petition for exoneration and
4
limitation of liability and her right to participate in the limitation fund. Issues that encompass
5
the arbitration agreement signed by her deceased husband and the Settlement Agreement which
6
she executed relate to her ability to seek the relief which she claims herein. Under Arbaugh,
7
supra, those defenses must be raised by Petitioner at trial and not afterwards.
8
9
10
The court finds that Petitioner did not raise these issues at trial. The trial concluded on
November 18, 2013 and Petitioner did not file the present motion until February 12, 2014,
almost three months after its conclusion.
11
Petitioner, however, did file on November 13, 2013, a Notice of Intent to file a Summary
12
Judgment motion or alternatively to compel Claimant Yang to arbitrate her claims herein.
13
Pursuant to Rule 12(h)(2), the motion had to be filed on or before November 18, 2013 because
14
the defenses raised therein relate to the ability of Claimant Yang to obtain the relief which she
15
seeks herein.
16
As the court has noted above, Petitioner’s motion is one that does not seek a dismissal of
17
this action because the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Defenses that relate to subject-
18
matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time. It may be raised for the first time through a post-
19
trial motion or on appeal.
20
Clearly, this court has subject-matter jurisdiction of this action under the Limitation of
21
Shipowners’ Liability Act (46 U.S.C. § 30505). The action was brought in this court by
22
Petitioner to limit its liability with regard to the loss of its vessel, the Majestic Blue. In filing
23
the action, Petitioner recognized that this court had subject-matter jurisdiction.
24
///
25
26
4
Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and alternative Motion for Summary
Judgment also requires the court to look at submissions not agreed to by the parties for use by the
27
court for the purpose of making its decision herein. Consideration by the court of the said
28 submission would be in violation of the stipulation entered into between the parties.
Page -5-
1
CONCLUSION
2
The court finds that Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Arbitration or alternatively for
3
Summary Judgment is one that does not relate to its subject-matter jurisdiction. It relates to the
4
ability of Claimant Yang to pursue the relief which she seeks in her claim filed herein. Under
5
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(2), defenses that relate to a failure to state a claim upon
6
which relief can be granted must be raised at trial. Petitioner did not bring its Motion to Compel
7
Arbitration and alternatively for Summary Judgment at trial or prior to the November 18, 2013
8
trial date. Petitioner filed its motion on February 12, 2014. As a result, the court finds that
9
Petitioner has waived its defenses against Claimant Esther Yang with regard to the limitation of
10
11
12
13
14
liability action herein.
The court, thus, finds it unnecessary to address the other arguments made by Claimant
Yang in her opposition to above motion.
Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and alternatively for Summary Judgment is
hereby denied.
15
/s/ Joaquin V.E. Manibusan, Jr.
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated: Jun 11, 2014
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page -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?