In Re: St. Jude & New Madrid Harbor Service
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner St. Jude & New Madrid Harbor Service's request for entry of judgment will be granted. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 5/22/18. (CSG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
IN RE: THE MATTER OF THE
THE COMPLAINT OF ST. JUDE
AND NEW MADRID HARBOR
SERVICE, INC., OWNER OF THE
M/V CITY OF NEW MADRID FOR
EXONERATION FROM OR
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
Case No. 1:14CV83 SNLJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Justin H. Smith was seriously injured while working aboard the M/V CITY OF
NEW MADRID, which is a vessel owned by St. Jude & New Madrid Harbor Service and
operated on the Mississippi River. Mr. Smith filed a petition for damages in the Circuit
Court of New Madrid County, Missouri, Case No. 14NM-CV00158, seeking redress for
his injuries from St. Jude & New Madrid Harbor Service.
Petitioner St. Jude & New Madrid Harbor Service filed this Limitation of Liability
action on June 6, 2014 pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 30505, § 30511, and Supplemental
Admiralty Rule F. As mandated by Rule F(3), once a vessel owner complies with the
requirements of Rule F(1), all claims and proceedings against the owner cease as a matter
of law. In accordance with that rule, on June 11, 2014, this Court issued an order
restraining all suits and ordering all persons to “file their respective claims with the Clerk
of this Court and to serve on Petitioner’s attorneys a copy thereof on or before August 15,
2014[.]” (#11.) Mr. Smith’s state court case was stayed as a result of that stay.
On August 28, 2014, and by agreement of the parties, this Court lifted the stay of
Smith’s state court case pursuant to the Savings-to-Suitors clause, 28 U.S.C. § 1333.
That is, because Smith was the only claimant to file in the case, the Court dissolved the
stay under the “single claimant” exception to the Limitation Act so that Smith could have
his cause heard by a jury.
The parties have provided the Court with status reports since that stay was lifted.
On May 19, 2017, a jury found in favor of St. Jude on all counts. On March 7, 2018, the
state court judge entered a “Final Judgment and Decree” in favor of defendant St. Jude.
St. Jude therefore requests that this Court issue an order exonerating petitioner St. Jude
based on the jury verdict finding that St. Jude was not negligent or its vessel unseaworthy
and on the state court’s judgment in favor of St. Jude on liability.
Claimant Smith opposes entry of judgment at this time because he intends to
appeal the state court judgment against him. St. Jude responds that issue preclusion
applies: because one judgment already concluded St. Jude is not at fault for this incident,
and that judgment is binding on claimant, the claimant does not get another day in court.
Plans to appeal a judgment based on a jury verdict is not grounds for avoiding issue
preclusion. Noble v. Shawnee Gun Shop, Inc., 316 S.W.3d 364, 369 (Mo. App. 2010)
(“Under Missouri law, a judgment on the merits at the trial-court level is considered a
final judgment for purposes of res judicata and collateral estoppel, even if the appeal of
that judgment is still pending.”).
If Claimant Smith is successful in his appeal of his state court case, his remedy is
to move for relief from a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner St. Jude & New Madrid Harbor
Service’s request for entry of judgment will be granted.
Dated this 22nd
day of May, 2018.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
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?