In the Matter of the Complaint of Spirit Cruises, LLC as Owner of the M/V SPIRIT OF BALTIMORE for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 5/25/2017.(c/m 5/25/17) (krs, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
In the Matter of the Complaint of Spirit
Cruises, LLC as Owner of the M/V SPIRIT
OF BALTIMORE for Exoneration from or
Limitation of Liability
Civil Action No. ELH-16-4097
On December 29, 2016, Spirit Cruises, LLC (“Spirit”), the owner of the M/V SPIRIT OF
BALTIMORE (the “Vessel”), filed its “Verified Complaint For Exoneration From Or Limitation
Of Liability”, pursuant to the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851, as amended, 46 U.S.C. §§
30501, et seq. 1 ECF 1. 2 The M/V SPIRIT OF BALTIMORE is a 119-foot passenger vessel (id.
¶ 3), which plaintiff estimates to have a current value of $1.85 million. Id. ¶ 15; see ECF 1-2
(Condition and Valuation Survey) at 13.
The Complaint arises out of the events during the early morning hours of August 28,
2016, when the Vessel was under charter and “allided with a floating dock located at
Henderson’s Wharf in the Fells Point area of Baltimore City.” Id. ¶¶ 5-6. According to the
Complaint, the Vessel was traveling at approximately three knots at the time of the incident. Id.
After Spirit filed suit, the Court issued an Order enjoining the commencement or further
prosecution of actions and proceedings against plaintiff in connection with the voyage of the
The Limitation of Liability Act is sometimes referred to as the “Shipowner's Limitation
of Liability Act.” See, e.g., Pickle v. Char Lee Seafood, Inc., 174 F.3d 444, 447 (4th Cir. 1999).
Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1333, which provides: “The district courts shall
have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of . . . [a]ny civil case of
admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they
are otherwise entitled.”
Vessel on August 28, 2016. ECF 3, ¶ 6. The Court set the limitation fund at $1,850,000. Id., ¶
1. Furthermore, the Court instructed the Clerk to issue a notice to potential claimants, consistent
with Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. F(4) (id. ¶ 5; see ECF 4 (notice)), and directed that the notice be
published in the Baltimore Sun, a daily newspaper, once per week for four weeks. ECF 3, ¶ 7.
The notice provided information to potential claimants concerning the filing of claims, and set a
deadline of February 15, 2017, for the filing of claims. See ECF 4.
Thereafter, twenty-eight people filed claims (collectively, “Claimants”) with the Court,
seeking an aggregate of more than $2.8 million. See docket; ECF 49; see also ECF 43-1 at 2.
Seventeen Claimants filed a demand for jury trial or otherwise pleaded such a request. See, e.g.,
ECF 8; see also ECF 43-1 at 3, n. 2 (collecting jury demands). Some of the Claimants also
counterclaimed. See, e.g., ECF 11.
Spirit then filed a motion to strike the Claimants’ jury demands (ECF 43), along with a
memorandum of law. ECF 43-1 (collectively, “Motion”). Spirit argues that the Claimants “do
not have the ability to request a jury trial in this proceeding . . . .” ECF 43 at 2. The Claimants
filed a consolidated opposition to the Motion (ECF 59) (“Opposition”) and Spirit replied. ECF
No hearing is necessary to resolve the Motion. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons
that follow, I shall grant the Motion and strike Claimants’ jury demands.
The Limitation of Liability Act
The Limitation of Liability Act finds its origin in a 1734 act of the Parliament of Great
Britain, which “relieved shipowners from liability for acts of their master and crew done without
the ‘privity or knowledge’ of the owner, to the extent of the value of the ship, its equipment, and
the freight to be earned on its particular voyage.” Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty and
Maritime Law, § 15-1 (5th ed.) (“Schoenbaum”). As observed by Chief Justice Taft in Hartford
Acc. & Indem. Co. of Hartford v. Southern Pac. Co., 273 U.S. 207, 214 (1927):
[T]he great object of the statute was to encourage shipbuilding and to induce the
investment of money in this branch of industry by limiting the venture of those
who build the ships to the loss of the ship itself or her freight then pending, in
cases of damage or wrong happening, without the privity, or knowledge of the
shipowner, and by the fault or neglect of the master or other persons on
board . . . .
And, as stated more recently by the Fourth Circuit in Norfolk Dredging Co v. Wiley, 439
F.3d 205, 209 (4th Cir. 2006): “Congress passed the Limitation of Liability Act ‘to assist
shipowners by placing them in parity with European (and particularly English) shipowners who
had long enjoyed the benefits of limiting their liability for marine disasters.’” (Quoting Pickle v.
Char Lee Seafood, Inc., 174 F.3d 444, 448 (4th Cir. 1999)).
Section 30505 of Tile 46 of the U.S. Code is titled “General limit of liability.” It
(a) In general.–Except as provided in section 30506 of this title, the liability of
the owner of a vessel for any claim, debt, or liability described in subsection (b)
shall not exceed the value of the vessel and pending freight. If the vessel has more
than one owner, the proportionate share of the liability of any one owner shall not
exceed that owner's proportionate interest in the vessel and pending freight.
(b) Claims subject to limitation.–Unless otherwise excluded by law, claims,
debts, and liabilities subject to limitation under subsection (a) are those arising
from any embezzlement, loss, or destruction of any property, goods, or
merchandise shipped or put on board the vessel, any loss, damage, or injury by
collision, or any act, matter, or thing, loss, damage, or forfeiture, done,
occasioned, or incurred, without the privity or knowledge of the owner.
(c) Wages.–Subsection (a) does not apply to a claim for wages.
Notably, under the Limitation of Liability Act, “the fund against which the claimants
must make their claim is equal to the value of the ship after the voyage on which the incident
occurred.” Pickle, 174 F.3d at 449 (citing Norwich & N.Y. Transp. Co. v. Wright, 13 Wall. (80
U.S.) 104, 123 (1871)) (emphasis added). “‘Thus if the ship is lost, the value is zero; if a few
strippings from the wreck and a life boat or two are saved, those may be solemnly handed over to
a trustee or their value ascertained and a bond posted.’” Pickle, 174 F.3d at 449 (quoting G.
Gilmore and C. Black, The Law of Admiralty, § 10-29 at 907 (2d ed. 1975) (“Gilmore and
The procedure for exoneration from and limitation of liability actions is governed by
statute and by Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset
Forfeiture Actions. Within six months of a receipt of a claim in writing, any vessel owner may
file a complaint for exoneration from or limitation of liability in an appropriate district court.
See 46 U.S.C. § 30511(a); Rule F(1) and (2). When the action is brought, the owner must
deposit with the Court “an amount equal to the value of the owner’s interest in the vessel and
pending freight, or approved security.” 46 U.S.C. § 30511(b)(1); see Rule F(1). After the action
has been brought and the owner has complied with the applicable rules, “all claims and
proceedings against the owner related to the matter in question shall cease.” 46 U.S.C. §
30511(c); see Rule F(3). The court then issues a notice to all persons asserting claims. Rule
After all claimants have been notified, “the court conducts a proceeding known as a
‘concursus,’ in which the court, without a jury, tries all issues related to the limitation
proceedings.” In re Complaint of Salty Sons Sports Fishing, Inc., 191 F. Supp. 2d 631, 633–34
(D. Md. 2002) (emphasis added); see also Pickle, 174 F.3d at 449 (“The proceeding is conducted
before a court in admiralty without a jury . . . [and] all claims are marshaled and brought into one
action—establishing a ‘concursus’ of all claims . . . .”). In Maryland Cas. Co. v. Cushing, 347
U.S. 409 (1954), Justice Frankfurter, writing for a plurality of the Court, explained, id. at 417:
[I]t is important to bear in mind that the concursus is not solely for the benefit of
the shipowner. The elaborate notice provisions of the Admiralty Rules are
designed to protect injured claimants. They ensure that all claimants, not just a
favored few, will come in on an equal footing to obtain a pro rata share of their
damages. To permit direct actions to drain away part or all of the insurance
proceeds prejudices the rights of those victims who rely, and have every reason to
rely, on the limitation proceeding to present their claims.
In the concursus, “the Court determines ‘whether there was negligence; if there was
negligence, whether it was without the privity and knowledge of the owner; and if the limitation
is granted, how the [limitation] fund should be distributed.’” In re Complaint of Salty Sons
Sports Fishing, Inc., 191 F. Supp. 2d at 634 (quoting Universal Towing Co. v. Barrale, 595 F.2d
414, 417 (8th Cir. 1979) (alteration in Salty Sons Sports Fishing). If a shipowner fails to
establish a right under the Limitation of Liability Act and the limitation is denied, “the claimants
are released to pursue their original claims in full”, which they can do either through a
continuation of the limitation proceeding, in admiralty, or in their original forums. Pickle, 174
F.3d at 449; see also Wheeler v. Marine Navigation Sulphur Carriers, Inc., 764 F.2d 1008, 1011
(4th Cir. 1985) (“Each circuit that has considered this question has ruled that once limitation is
denied, plaintiffs should be permitted to elect whether to remain in the limitation proceeding or
to revive their original claims in their original fora.”); Fecht v. Makowski, 406 F.2d 721, 723 n.7
(5th Cir. 1969) (“Since the admiralty court has the power to grant full relief even though
limitation is denied, one or more of the damage claimants may choose to litigate liability in
Notably, “[f]ederal courts have exclusive admiralty jurisdiction to determine whether a
vessel owner is entitled to limited liability.” In re Muer, 146 F.3d 410, 417 (6th Cir. 1998); see
also Ex parte Green, 286 U.S. 437, 439-40 (1932) (“It is clear from our opinion that the state
court has no jurisdiction to determine the question of the owner's right to a limited
liability . . . .”); Langnes v. Green, 282 U.S. 531, 540 (1931); Beiswenger Enterprises Corp. v.
Carletta, 86 F.3d 1032, 1036 (11th Cir. 1996) (“Federal courts have exclusive admiralty
jurisdiction to determine whether the vessel owner is entitled to limited liability.”).
But, this exclusive jurisdiction creates a tension between the Limitation of Liability Act
and the “saving to suitors” clause of the admiralty jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1),
which “was designed to protect remedies available at common law.” Lewis v. Lewis & Clark
Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438, 454 (2001) (citing The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. (71 U.S.) 555
(1866)). In other words, “the saving to suitors clause preserves remedies and the concurrent
jurisdiction of state courts over some admiralty and maritime claims.” Lewis, 531 U.S. at 445.
The Lewis Court observed, 531 U.S. at 448: “Some tension exists between the saving to
suitors clause and the Limitation Act [because one] statute gives suitors the right to a choice of
remedies, and the other statute gives vessel owners the right to seek limitation of liability in
federal court.” As stated in In re Lyon Shipyard, 91 F. Supp. 3d 832, 839 (E.D.V.A. 2015): “The
tension between the savings to suitors clause and the Limitation of Liability Act is apparent,
because one gives plaintiffs the right to choose their remedy, including, as here, a suit in state
court, while the other allows a shipowner to avail itself of the federal courts to limit liability.”
In resolving this tension, the Supreme Court has carved out two exceptions to the federal
courts’ exclusive admiralty jurisdiction to resolve actions under the Limitation of Liability Act.
Gilmore and Black, § 10-18 at 864.
The first exception is “where there is only a single
Parte Green, 286
440; Langnes, 282 U.S. at 540-544; Complaint of McCarthy Bros. Co./Clark Bridge, 83 F.3d
821, 831 (7th Cir. 1996); Vatican Shrimp Co. v. Solis, 820 F.2d 674, 677 (5th Cir. 1987). And,
the second exception is “where the total claims do not exceed the value of the limitation fund.”
Lewis, 531 U.S. at 451; accord Lake Tankers Corp. v. Henn, 354 U.S. 147, 152, (1957); Gorman
v. Cerasia, 2 F.3d 519, 524 (3d Cir. 1993); In re Midland Enters., Inc., 886 F.2d 812, 814 (6th
Cir.1989); Complaint of Mohawk Assocs. & Furlough, Inc., 897 F. Supp. 906, 910 (D. Md.
1995). If either of the two exceptions applies, the district judge will lift the injunction on other
actions, and the claimants can proceed in the forum of their choosing. Gilmore and Black, § 1018 at 864; see Lewis, 561 U.S. at 454; In re Lyon Shipyard, 91 F. Supp. 3d at 838-39.
In its Motion to Strike, Spirit argues that the Claimants are not entitled to a jury trial for
the limitation proceeding. ECF 43-1 at 9. Citing Pickle, 174 F.3d 444, Spirit contends that
neither of the two exceptions to the Court’s exclusive admiralty jurisdiction applies. ECF 43-1 at
9. In particular, Spirit points out that there is more than one claimant and the total of the claims
exceeds the limitation fund amount of $1,850,000. Id. Therefore, Spirit argues that its filing of
this action mandated “that any actions other than the limitation proceeding must ‘cease’
immediately and that any potential claimants would be required to file their claims, pursuant to
Supplemental Admiralty Rule F(5), in the limitation proceeding where ‘the court, sitting without
a jury, adjudicates the claims.’” Id. (quoting Lewis, 531 U.S. at 448).
In their Opposition, the Claimants argue: “Dismissal of Claimants’ demands for jury trial
in this matter are premature because many facts remain yet to be discovered, both through the
discovery process in this litigation and based on the Coast Guard’s yet to be completed
investigation.” ECF 59 at 6. According to the Claimants, the facts learned during discovery
will effectively allow the Claimants to determine whether Spirit is entitled to exoneration from or
limitation of liability. Id. at 6-7.
Furthermore, Claimants contend that it is premature to dismiss their demands for jury
trial because the Court also has diversity jurisdiction over the case. Id. at 7. According to
Claimants, “[e]ven if the limitation action is dismissed, this court would continue to have
jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims, applying substantive maritime law.” Id. Claimants contend
that in that situation, “under the savings to suitors clause, Claimants’ right to a jury trial would
be preserved.” Id.
Finally, Claimants assert that a right to jury trial can be preserved even in the limitation
of liability action. Id. They point out that this result could be reached through stipulations
including: “(1) stipulations that the value of all of the claims are less than the purported ad
interim stipulation of value of the Vessel; and (2) stipulations that suffice to eliminate the
multiple-claims-inadequate-fund situation that Petitioners assert exists in this case.” Id. at 7-8.
In view of these potential stipulations, Claimants state that “it would be premature to strike now
the jury demands by Claimants . . . .” Id. at 8.
In its Reply, Spirit reasserts its view that there is no right to trial by jury in this limitation
action. See ECF 65 at 1-5. Spirit argues: “[T]he Supreme Court has articulated two exceptions
that would permit a claimant to obtain a jury trial despite a pending limitation proceeding.
Neither of those two exceptions currently applies in this case.” ECF 65 at 5. And, Spirit
contends that the existence of complete diversity is of no consequence with respect to the
availability of a jury in a limitation action. Id. at 6-7.
The arguments of counsel here are tantamount to the proverbial ships passing in the
night. As far as I can tell, despite their adverse positions, counsel appear to be in near-complete
agreement as to many aspects of the case.
As an initial matter, counsel for both sides seem to agree that there is generally no right to
trial by jury on the question of exoneration from or limitation of liability under the Limitation of
Liability Act. See ECF 43-1 at 4-6; ECF 59 at 5. Moreover, both sides agree that the Supreme
Court has recognized two exceptions, discussed earlier, in which the district court can dissolve
the injunction against state or federal court proceedings during the pendency of the limitation
action, and that neither of those two exceptions presently applies. ECF 43-1 at 6; ECF 59 at 7-8.
And, although the parties disagree as to the applicability of the Limitation of Liability Act, there
appears to be little disagreement as to the right of the Claimants to proceed by way of a jury, in
one way or another, should the Court determine that the Limitation of Liability does not apply
here. ECF 43-1 at 8 (quoting Pickle, 174 F.3d at 450); ECF 59 at 7.
The Fourth Circuit’s opinion in Pickle, 174 F.3d 444, provides guidance as to the fate of
the Claimants’ jury trial demands. Roy Pickle and Jonathan Williams, Jr. were crewmen aboard
the F/V CHAR-LEE II, a fishing vessel owned by Char Lee Seafood, Inc (“Char Lee”). Id. at
446. In 1997, Pickle, Williams, and Jesse Dempsey, the captain, were fishing approximately
thirty miles southeast of Cape Lookout, North Carolina, when “gale-force winds and rough seas
erupted.” Id. “[T]he F/V Char–Lee II never returned” and “was presumed to have sunk between
April 1 and April 4, 1997 . . . .” Id. at 447.
Thereafter, the estates and families of Pickle and Williams filed separate actions in
admiralty against, inter alia, Char Lee, alleging “negligence under the Jones Act, negligence and
unseaworthiness under general maritime law, negligence and unseaworthiness under the Death
on the High Seas Act, and wrongful death under North Carolina law.” Id. Char Lee filed a
separate action in the district court invoking the Limitation of Liability Act. Id. The district
court, sua sponte, entered an order consolidating for trial the two individual actions with the
limitation of liability action. Id. Thereafter, Char Lee noted an interlocutory appeal, arguing that
the district court’s consolidation of the individual actions with the limitation of liability action
“compromises the exclusivity of its limitation-of-liability action provided for by the Shipowner's
Limitation of Liability Act.” Id. at 449.
Among other things, the Fourth Circuit confronted the effect of the consolidation on the
right to a jury trial under the Jones Act. Id. at 450. The Court explained, id. (emphasis added):
[I]nsofar as claimants proceed in a limitation-of-liability action, they are not
entitled to a trial by jury, even if the basis of their claim for fault is made under
the Jones Act. But if the limitation-of-liability is denied, then the claimants may
elect to proceed with their original actions before any jury authorized and
demanded in those actions.
The Court also said that, if the district court ultimately denied the limitation of liability, “‘the
claimants may elect to pursue their claims to judgment in the admiralty court or pursue their
rights under the Jones Act.’” Id. at 451 (quoting In re Wood, 230 F.2d 197, 199 (2d Cir. 1956)).
Ultimately, the Fourth Circuit remanded the case to the district court with instructions to
sever the limitation of liability action. Id. And, the Court further directed, id.: “In the event that
the limitation of liability is denied, the [district] court should lift the stay and provide the
claimants a choice to pursue their claims in the limitation-of-liability action or to revive their
original actions wherein they have demanded trials by jury.” 3
I agree with Spirit that there is no right to a jury in the limitation of liability proceeding
with respect to the issue of the application of the Limitation of Liability Act. See ECF 65 at 6;
see also Pickle, 174 F.3d at 449. In the event that the Claimants are able to satisfy either of the
two exceptions recognized by the Supreme Court, the Court will lift the stay and Claimants will
be permitted to pursue a jury trial in a separate proceeding in the forum of their choosing.
The “stay” referred to by the Pickle Court was the injunction entered by the district
court in the limitation of liability action against the initiation and prosecution of related cases.
See Pickle, 174 F.3d at 448; Rule F(3).
Similarly, if Claimants prevail on the limitation of liability action, they will be permitted to elect
to continue in that proceeding in admiralty or to file suit in state or federal court. But, at this
time, Claimants do not have a right to proceed by way of a jury trial as to the applicability of the
Limitation of Liability Act.
In sum, I shall GRANT the Motion insofar as Claimants seek to proceed by way of a jury
in the limitation action on the issue of exoneration from or limitation of liability. However, the
Motion is granted without prejudice to Claimants’ rights to renew their requests for trial by jury
in the event that future proceedings would permit a jury trial.
Date: May 25, 2017
Ellen Lipton Hollander
United States District Judge
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?