In Re: In the Matter of Chem Carriers Towing, LLC

Filing 78

ORDER AND REASONS GRANTING 68 to Dissolve Restraining Order, as set forth herein. FURTHER ORDERED that the Court's 3 injunction restraining prosecution of Claimant's claims in state court is lifted. FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is STAYED and ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED, to be reopened, if necessary, upon a motion of the parties. Signed by Chief Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 1/13/2023.(jls)

Case 2:21-cv-01025-NJB-DPC Document 78 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IN RE CHEM CARRIERS TOWING, LLC

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 21-1025
SECTION: “G”

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Limitation Claimant Kai Hollingsworth’s (“Claimant”) “Motion to
Dissolve Restraining Order.” 1 Limitation Petitioner Chem Carriers Towing, LLC (“Petitioner”)
opposes the motion and argues that the stipulations attached to the motion are insufficient to protect
Petitioner’s rights. 2 Claimant replies in further support of the motion and argues that the amended
stipulations attached to his reply memorandum address Petitioner’s concerns. 3 For the reasons that
follow, the Court finds that Claimant has a right to pursue his claims in state court because he is a
single claimant in a limitation action. Therefore, considering the motion, the memoranda in support
and opposition, the record, and the applicable law, the Court grants the motion.
I. Background
According to the Complaint, Claimant was allegedly injured on June 10, 2020, when the
bunk where he slept broke free from the wall of Petitioner’s vessel, the M/V Sam L. Hays (the
“Vessel”). 4 On November 10, 2020, Claimant filed a petition in the Civil District Court for the

1

Rec. Doc. 68.

2

Rec. Doc. 73.

3

Rec. Doc. 77.

4

Rec. Doc. 1 at 1.

1

Case 2:21-cv-01025-NJB-DPC Document 78 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 7

Parish of Orleans requesting maintenance and cure as well as damages under the Jones Act and
general maritime law. 5 Petitioner was served notice of Claimant’s state court action on December
2, 2020. 6
On May 27, 2021, Petitioner filed a Complaint for Exoneration from or Limitation of
Liability in this Court. 7 On June 1, 2021, the Court approved Petitioner’s declarations of value,
security, and ad interim stipulation. 8 The Court also directed issuance of notice to all claimants
and enjoined prosecution of claims. 9 Claimant timely answered the Complaint. 10 Claimant was
the only individual to file a claim in this matter. 11
On April 21, 2022, the Court denied Claimant’s motion to dismiss, or alternatively motion
for summary judgment, finding that the asserted untimeliness of Petitioner’s filing did not
implicate this Court’s jurisdiction, and that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to when
Petitioner received notice of a claim with a reasonable possibility of exceeding the Vessel’s
value. 12 On May 31, 2022, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion for partial summary judgment
and dismissal of Claimant’s negligence and unseaworthiness claims, finding that there were

5

Rec. Doc. 13-1 at 2.

6

Rec. Doc. 1 at 3.

7

Id.

8

Rec. Doc. 3.

9

Id.

10

Rec. Doc. 4.

11

Rec. Doc. 12.

12

Rec. Doc. 59.

2

Case 2:21-cv-01025-NJB-DPC Document 78 Filed 01/17/23 Page 3 of 7

material facts in dispute precluding summary judgment. 13 That same day, the Court also denied
with prejudice Petitioner’s motion in limine to exclude the report opinions, and testimony of
Captain Gregg Nichols 14 and denied without prejudice Petitioner’s motion in limine to exclude
the report opinions and testimony of Dr. Shael Wolfson. 15
Claimant filed the instant motion on December 20, 2022. 16 Petitioner filed its opposition
on January 3, 2023. 17 On January 10, 2023, with leave of Court, Claimant filed a reply. 18
II. Parties’ Arguments
In the instant motion, Claimant asks the Court to dissolve the injunction and stay this matter
so that he can pursue his claim in state court. 19 Claimant argues that Supreme Court precedent
authorizes a single claimant to pursue its case in state court so long as the claimant files appropriate
protective stipulations. 20 Claimant asserts that he has made adequate stipulations that preserve
Petitioner’s rights under the Limitation of Liability Act. 21
In opposition, Petitioner argues that, although dissolving the restraining order in a

13

Rec. Doc. 62.

14

Rec. Doc. 60.

15

Rec. Doc. 61.

16

Rec. Doc. 68.

17

Rec. Doc. 72.

18

Rec. Doc. 77.

19

Rec. Doc. 68.

20

Rec. Doc. 68-2 at 2–3.

21

Id. at 3–4.

3

Case 2:21-cv-01025-NJB-DPC Document 78 Filed 01/17/23 Page 4 of 7

limitation action is “generally permitted in single-claimant situations with the appropriate
stipulations, Claimant’s stipulations here are inadequate.” 22 Therefore, Petitioner asserts that
“[t]he restraining order should remain in effect until appropriate stipulations are filed that more
adequately protect [Petitioner’s] limitation rights.” 23 Specifically, Petitioner asks Claimant to
stipulate that “this Court has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to determine all issues related to
[Petitioner’s] statutory right to limit its liability under the Limitation of Liability Act and, relatedly,
the proper value of the limitation fund.” 24 Petitioner also asks Claimant to “stipulate that he will
not seek any judgment or ruling on the issue of [Petitioner’s] right to limitation of liability in any
other federal or state courts” and “that, in the event that limitation is granted, no judgment against
[Petitioner] will be asserted to the extent that it exceeds the Court determined value of the
limitation fund.” 25
In reply, Claimant avers that, although the stipulation attached to the original motion was
adequate, he files an amended stipulation attached to the reply memorandum that “cures any
alleged defect or deficiency in the original stipulation. 26
III. Law & Analysis
Under the Limitation of Liability Act, “[a] shipowner facing potential liability for a
maritime accident may file suit in federal court . . . to limit his liability for damages or injuries

22

Rec. Doc. 72 at 2.

23

Id.

24

Id. at 4.

25

Id.

26

Rec. Doc. 77 at 1.

4

Case 2:21-cv-01025-NJB-DPC Document 78 Filed 01/17/23 Page 5 of 7

arising from a maritime accident to ‘the amount or value of the interest of such owner in such
vessel, and her freight then pending,’ if the accident occurred without the shipowner’s ‘privity or
knowledge.’” 27 When the shipowner files such a suit, “the federal district court stays all related
claims against the shipowner pending in any forum, and requires all claimants to assert their claims
in the limitation court.” 28 Doing so gives the federal court “exclusive jurisdiction [over] suits
brought under the Act.” 29 However, “where a single claimant sues a shipowner in state court and
the owner files a petition for limitation of liability in federal court, the federal court must allow the
claimant’s action to proceed in state court while retaining jurisdiction of the limitation of liability
action.” 30 “[A] single claimant’s choice of forum is a sufficient interest to warrant the dissolution
of an injunction if the claimant files stipulations that adequately protect the shipowner’s rights
under the act.” 31 Thus, a single claimant may pursue a state court claim after doing the following:
(1) “the claimant must stipulate that the admiralty court reserves exclusive jurisdiction to
determine all issues related to the shipowner’s right to limit liability” and (2) “the claimant must
stipulate that no judgment will be asserted against the shipowner to the extent it exceeds the value
of the limitation fund.” 32
Claimant is the only claimant in this matter. Furthermore, he has stipulated to the following

27

In re Complaint of Port Arthur Towing Co., 42 F.3d 312, 315 (5th Cir. 1995).

28

Id.

29

Id.

30

In re Tetra Applied Techs., LP, 362 F.3d 338, 340 (5th Cir. 2004) (emphasis added).

31

Inland Dredging v. Sanchez, 468 F.3d 864, 867 (5th Cir. 2006).

32

Texaco, Inc. v. Williams, 47 F.3d 765, 767–68 (5th Cir. 1995).

5

Case 2:21-cv-01025-NJB-DPC Document 78 Filed 01/17/23 Page 6 of 7

in the event that the Court grants the instant motion:
1. Claimant recognizes that this Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the
statutory right of Chem Carriers Towing, LLC, as vessel owner of M/V SAM L.
HAYS, to limitation of liability under 46 U.S.C. § 30505 et seq; however, claimant
specifically reserves the right to deny and contest in this Honorable Court all
assertions and allegations made by Chem Carriers Towing, LLC in the complaint
for limitation filed herein by Chem Carriers.
2. Claimant stipulates that in the event of a judgment in favor of the claimant in any
state court action now pending by claimant against Chem Carriers Towing, LLC,
and or its insured, totaling in excess of $1,606,978.70 (or whatever the sum the
court determined is the appropriate limitation fund amount), in no event would
claimant seek to enforce any judgment beyond the court’s finding as to the value of
the vessel and her pending freight, unless and until this Honorable Court denies
Chem Carriers Towing, LLC’s right to limitation of liability in this matter.
Claimant specifically reserves the right to enforce any state court judgment against
Chem Carriers Towing, LLC that exceeds the limitation fund in this case, if and
once this Honorable Court denies Chem Carrier’s right to limitation.
3. Claimant will not, in the state court action now pending or yet to be brought, seek
any judgment or ruling on the issue of Chem Carrier’s right to limitation of liability
or on the issue of the possible value of the limitation fund, and the claimant hereby
waives any res judicata defense relevant to the issue of limitation of liability and
the proper value of the limitation fund based upon any judgment that may be
rendered in any other state court action now pending or yet to be brought. 33
These amended stipulations are sufficient to protect Petitioner’s rights under the Limitation Act.34
Furthermore, they address the concerns raised by Petitioner in its opposition. 35 In Langnes v.
Green, the United States Supreme Court held that a district court abused its discretion by denying
a single limitation claimant’s motion to dissolve an injunction so that it could proceed in state

33

Rec. Doc. 77-1.

34

See Inland Dredging, 468 F.3d at 867.

35

See Rec. Doc. 72 at 3–4.

6

Case 2:21-cv-01025-NJB-DPC Document 78 Filed 01/17/23 Page 7 of 7

court. 36 Therefore, because Claimant has filed the appropriate stipulations, the injunction should
be dissolved, allowing Claimant to pursue his claim in state court. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Claimant’s Motion 37 is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s injunction restraining prosecution of
Claimant’s claims 38 in state court is lifted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above captioned matter is STAYED and
ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED, to be reopened, if necessary, upon a motion of the parties.

13th day of January, 2023.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this _____

_________________________________
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

36

282 U.S. 531, 541 (1931).

37

Rec. Doc. 68.

38

Rec. Doc. 3.

7