American Boat Company LLC, Strait Maritime Group LLC, Western Rivers Boat Management, INC.and Danny Etheridge
RULING denying 26 Motion to Bifurcate filed on behalf of Titus Claimants. The 33 Motion to Bifurcate is GRANTED filed by Claimant Bear Industries, Inc. The 35 , 36 Motions for Oral Argument are DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 5/15/2017. (LLH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT
OF AMERICAN BOAT COMPANY LLC
AND STRAIT MARITIME GROUP LLC,
AS OWNERS, AND WESTERN RIVERS
BOAT MANAGEMENT, INC., AS
OPERATOR AND OWNER PRO HAC
VICE, OF THE M/V DANNY ETHERIDGE,
FOR EXONERATION FROM OR
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Bifurcate1 filed by Claimant
Kathryn Hammes-Ciraolo on behalf of the Titus Claimants. Claimant Bear Industries,
Inc. (“Bear Industries”) has filed an Opposition2 to Hammes-Ciraolo’s motion and has
filed its own Motion to Bifurcate.3 Limitation Plaintiffs, American Boat Company, LLC
and Strait Maritime Group, LLC, as owners, and Western Rivers Boat Management, Inc.,
as operator, owner and/or owner pro hac vice of the M/V DANNY ETHERIDGE
(collectively “Western Rivers”) have filed an Opposition4 to Hammes-Ciraolo’s motion.
FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On March 18, 2016, Patrick Titus was killed during the course of his employment
Rec. Doc. No. 26.
Rec. Doc. No. 32.
Rec. Doc. No. 33.
Rec. Doc. No. 34.
Page 1 of 6
as a crewmember of the M/V DANNY ETHERIDGE. The incident occurred on the
Mississippi River near Port Allen, Louisiana, at a facility owned by Bear Industries. Three
lawsuits resulted from this incident: (1) Jordan Adams, et al v. Western Rivers Boat
Management, Inc., et al, No. 1042893, filed in the 18th Judicial District for the Parish of
West Baton Rouge; (2) the current action for exoneration from or limitation of liability,
civil and maritime, under the Limitation of Liability Act5 brought by Western Rivers; and
(3) James Crosswell, et al v. Western Rivers Boat Management, Inc., et al, No. 201659421, filed in the District of Harris County, State of Texas.
Following the filing of this limitation action, the two state court actions were
stayed. Answers and Claims in this proceeding were filed by four groups of claimants,
each of whom claim damages against Western Rivers: (1) Bear Industries; (2) Kathryn
Hammes-Ciraolo, individually and as a personal representative of the Estate of Patrick
James Titus; (3) Jordan Adams, as Next Friend and on Behalf of T.T., a Minor and Heir
to the Estate of Patrick Titus; and (4) James Crosswell, individually and as Heir of the
Estate of Patrick Titus. The Titus Claimants have requested a jury trial.
Hammes-Ciraolo, on behalf of the Titus Claimants, moves to bifurcate this matter
pursuant to the Savings-to-Suitors Clause6 and requests that, after the Court adjudicates
the exoneration from or limitation of liability issue, the Court return all non-limitation
issues to the state court actions. Bear Industries and Western Rivers agree that the
matter should be bifurcated such that the Court should determine the limitation issue
without a jury, but also move that the Court should retain jurisdiction and empanel a jury
46 U.S.C. §§ 30501-30512, Rule 9(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule F of the
Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims.
Article III, Section 2, U.S. Constitution.
Page 2 of 6
to decide the issues of fault and damages since this is a multi-claimant matter, and the
Titus Claimants have failed to agree to the required stipulations to return to state court.
The Court has the discretion to bifurcate claims. A district court may order
separate trials of one or more claims or issues “[f]or convenience, to avoid prejudice, or
to expedite and economize.”7 Nevertheless, the Fifth Circuit has cautioned courts before
bifurcating issues and ordering separate trials that the “issue to be tried [separately] must
be so distinct and separable from the others that a trial of it alone may be had without
injustice.”8 Even if bifurcation promotes judicial economy, courts should not permit it
when it will lead to delay, additional expenses, and prejudice.9 Because bifurcation is
discretionary, courts should balance equities before bifurcating issues.10 When a court
decides to bifurcate issues and order separate trials, the court must preserve a party's
federal right to a jury trial.11
“Tension exists between the saving to suitors clause and the Limitation Act
because the former affords suitors a choice of remedies, while the latter gives
shipowners the right to seek limitation of their liability exclusively in federal court.”12
Under the Saving-to-Suitors Clause, plaintiffs have the option to request a state jury trial
for personal injury claims involving the Jones Act and general maritime law.13 Under the
Limitation Liability Act, vessel owners have a right to a federal bench trial if “the amount
See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 42(b).
Swofford v. B&W, Inc., 336 F.2d 406, 415 (5th Cir. 1964); Laitram Corp. v. Hewlett Packard Co., 791
F.Supp. 113, 115 (E.D. La. 1992).
Laitram Corp., 791 F. Supp. at 115.
In re Tetra Applied Techs. L P, 362 F.3d 338, 340 (5th Cir. 2004).
28 U.S.C. § 1333.
Page 3 of 6
of the claims exceed[s] the value of the ship and its cargo,” and the vessel owner is
“seek[ing] to limit liability to the value of the ship and its cargo.”14
This conflict can be resolved by bifurcating the personal injury and limitation
claims and allowing two separate trials—a federal bench trial and a state jury trial. The
Supreme Court has allowed such a bifurcation “where a single claimant sues a
shipowner in state court and the owner files a petition for limitation of liability in federal
The situation is complicated, however, when a limitation action involves
multiple claimants, as it does here. The Fifth Circuit has recognized that, with proper
stipulations, multiple claimants seeking recovery in excess of the limitation fund may be
allowed to proceed outside the limitation proceeding.16
Generally, to do so, the
claimants must “stipulate that the federal court has exclusive jurisdiction over limitation
issues and the claimants will not seek to enforce a greater damage award than the
In the present case, the claims of the Titus Claimants are alleged to exceed the
value of the vessel, which Western Rivers attests to be approximately $2.5 million.18
Further, the Titus Claimants have not indicated any intent to stipulate that they will not
seek to enforce a greater damage award in state court. Thus, bifurcation allowing the
Titus Claimants to proceed in state courts would be inappropriate as this Court could not
protect Western Rivers’ right to limitation. Moreover, such an order would result in at
CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHER R. MILLER, ET AL., 14A FEDERAL PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE § 3672 (4th ed. 2014); see also In re the Matter of Marquette Transp. Co. Gulf-Inland, LLC,
No. 13-6351, 2014 WL 6389978, at *5 (E.D. La. Nov. 13, 2014).
In re Tetra Applied Techs. LP, 362 F.3d at 340 (citing Langnes v. Green, 282 U.S. 531, 541 (1931)); see
Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438 (2001).
See Texaco, Inc. v. Williams, 47 F.3d 765, 767 (5th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted).
Id. at 768-69.
See Rec. Doc. No. 1-1.
Page 4 of 6
least three separate, duplicative, and expensive trials, which would be inconvenient and
would not serve judicial economy.19 The cases relied upon by the Titus Claimants are
inapposite as they do not involve multi-claimant scenarios as presented here.
Accordingly, the Titus Claimants’ motion to bifurcate is DENIED.
Bear Industries requests that the Court try all limitation issues and preside over a
jury trial in this forum to resolve Claimants’ personal injury and contribution claims.20
Indeed, other courts have allowed this procedure, and the Court finds that it is an
appropriate compromise here as well.21 Considering the Claimants’ statutory right to try
their Jones Act and general maritime law claims to a jury and Western Rivers’ right to a
bench trial on the issue of limitation, “this Court will follow the procedure adopted by
other district courts and bifurcate trial here.”22 The Court finds that this procedure will
avoid prejudice to either party. Accordingly, Bear Industries' motion to bifurcate trial
between the bench and a jury in this forum is GRANTED.
See Fed. R. Civ. Pro 42(b).
While Western Rivers contends the Court should retain jurisdiction and decide all issues related to this
matter, Western Rivers agrees in the alternative that the Court should try all issues to a jury except for
those related to the limitation. See Rec. Doc. No. 34, p. 9.
See In re Crescent Energy Services, LLC, 2015 WL 7574771 at * 4 (E.D. La. Nov. 25, 2015); In re the
Matter of Marquette Transportation Company Gulf-Inland, LLC, No. 13-6351, 2014 WL 6389978 (E.D. La.
Nov. 13, 2014); Charles Alan Wright, Arther R. Miller, et al., 14A Federal Practice and Procedure § 3672
(4th ed. 2014); Brister v. A.W.I., Inc., 946 F.2d 350, 353 (5th Cir. 1991).
See Marquette, 2014 WL 6389978 at *5.
Page 5 of 6
For the reasons set forth above, the Motion to Bifurcate23 filed by Claimant
Kathryn Hammes-Ciraolo on behalf of the Titus Claimants is DENIED. The Motion to
Bifurcate24 by Claimant Bear Industries, Inc. is GRANTED.
The pending Motions for
Oral Argument25 are DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on May 15, 2017.
JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Rec. Doc. No. 26.
Rec. Doc. No. 33.
Rec. Doc. Nos. 35 & 36.
Page 6 of 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?