Rider et al v. Kawasaki Motors Corporation USA et al
Filing
137
MEMORANDUM DECISION Overruling 124 OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court by Kawasaki Motors Corporation USA re 117 Order on Motion to Strike. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. and Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd.s Objection is OVERRULED and the Order of the Magistrate Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 9/10/2018. (jwt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
NICOLE WELLS,
Plaintiff,
v.
KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A.,
KAWASAKI HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD.,
H2O ZONE LLC,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER OVERRULING [124]
DEFENDANTS KAWASAKI MOTORS
CORP., U.S.A. and KAWASAKI HEAVY
INDUSTRIES LTD’S OBJECTION TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE FURSE’S ORDER
DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE
ALLEGATIONS OF ADMIRALTY
JURISDICTION
Case No. 2:16-cv-01086-DN
District Judge David Nuffer
Defendants Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. and Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd. (the
“Kawasaki Defendants”), objected 1 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) to Magistrate
Judge Evelyn J. Furse’s April 26, 2018 Order 2 denying the Kawasaki Defendants’ Motion to
Strike Allegations of Admiralty Jurisdiction. 3 Specifically, the Kawasaki Defendants argue that
the Order was contrary to law. 4 Plaintiff Nicole Wells responded 5to the Objection. Based upon
1
Defendants Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. and Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd.’s Objection to Magistrate Judge
Furse’s Order Denying Motion to Strike Allegations of Admiralty Jurisdiction (“Objection”), docket no. 124, filed
May 10, 2018.
2
Order Denying Kawasaki Defendants’ Motion to Strike Allegations of Admiralty Jurisdiction (ECF No. 74)
(“Order”), docket no. 117, filed April 26, 2018.
3
Defendants Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. and Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd.’s Motion to Strike Allegations of
Admiralty Jurisdiction and Memorandum in Support (“Motion”), docket no. 74, filed October 2, 2017.
4
5
Objection at 6.
Plaitniff’s Memorandum in Response to Defendants Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. and Kawasaki Heavy
Industries Ltd.’s Objection to Magistrate Judge Furse’s Order Denying Motion to Strike Allegations of Admiralty
Jurisdiction, docket no. 126, filed May 23, 2018.
the following memorandum decision, the Objection is OVERRULED and the Order is
AFFIRMED.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides that “The district judge must consider
timely objections [to a magistrate judge’s nondispositive 6 order] and modify or set aside any part
of the order that is contrary to law or clearly erroneous.” 7 When an objection asserts that an order
is contrary to the law, as the Kawasaki Defendants have done here, a district judge may perform
a plenary review as to matters of law. 8 The ultimate question to be resolved is whether the
magistrate judge applied the wrong legal standard or applied the appropriate legal standard
incorrectly. 9 But “Because a magistrate judge is afforded broad discretion in the resolution of
non-dispositive ... disputes” a magistrate judge’s order will only be overruled if the magistrate
judge abused discretion. 10
Judge Furse determined in the Order that there was no basis to grant the Kawasaki
Defendants’ Motion and strike Plaintiff’s allegations of admiralty jurisdiction. 11 The Kawasaki
Defendants argue that this determination is contrary to law because “(1) the Order ignores the
multifactorial test for connection . . . and (2) the Order errs in concluding . . . that merely falling
off a [personal watercraft] on a navigable waterway involves admiralty jurisdiction.” 12
6
This order is a nondispositive order as it does not dispose of any claim in the case and it addressed a nondispositive
motion. The Kawasaki Defendants moved to strike the Plaintiff’s allegations of admiralty jurisdiction not to dispose
of any claims in the case but to clarify which law should apply “due to the significant differences between maritime
law and Utah state law, particularly regarding apportionment of fault, as well as the effect of any potential
settlements.” Motion at 2. The motion to strike wherefore was properly referred under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
7
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
8
Wyoming v. United States Dep't of Agriculture, 239 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1236 (D.Wyo.2002).
9
Id.
10
Ariza v. U.S. West Communications, Inc., 167 F.R.D. 131, 133 (D.Colo.1996).
11
Order at 3.
12
Objection at 6–7.
2
Magistrate Judge Furse reached this conclusion by applying the location and connection test for
admiralty jurisdiction that the United States Supreme Court set forth in Jerome B. Grubart, Inc.
v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. 13 The Order specifically mentions that the parties did not
dispute that this was the correct test to use. 14
According to the Order, the parties agreed that the location portion of this test was
satisfied as Lake Powell is a navigable water. 15 The parties also agreed that the incident at issue
here involved the Plaintiff’s fall off the back of a personal watercraft, that she was picked up by
that same personal watercraft, and returned to the beach. 16 However, the parties disputed that the
incident satisfied the requirements of the connection test. 17
The connection portion of the test for admiralty jurisdiction is satisfied if it can be
determined that, after assessing the general features of the type of incident involved, the incident
has a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce and whether the general character of
the activity giving rise to the incident shows a substantial relationship to traditional maritime
activity. 18 In determining that the incident here did satisfy the requirements of the connection test
for admiralty jurisdiction, Judge Furse relied on the analysis of the Ninth Circuit in the case In
Re Mission Bay Jet Sports, LLC.19
13
513 U.S. 527, 535 (1995).
14
Order at 2.
15
Id.
16
Id.
17
Id.
18
Grubart, 513 U.S. at 533.
19
570 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir 2009).
3
That Ninth Circuit case also addressed whether admiralty jurisdiction existed over tort
claims brought by individuals who were thrown off personal watercraft. After applying both
prongs of the location and connection test, the Ninth Circuit concluded that
[T]he incident occurred on navigable waters. Its general features - harm by a
vessel in navigable waters to a passenger-had a potential effect on maritime
commerce [as falling overboard in navigable waters potentially implicates search
and rescue efforts], and the general character of the activity-operation of a vessel
in navigable waters - had a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity.
Consequently, the federal district court had admiralty jurisdiction. 20
Given the factual similarity of In Re Mission Bay Jet Sports, LLC to the facts here, Judge Furse
relied on the Ninth Circuit’s analysis in its entirety and did not perform a separate, detailed
application of the facts in this case to the provisions of the connection test before concluding that
admiralty justification exists. 21
Judge Furse did not abuse her discretion or issue an order that is contrary to the law.
Judge Furse did not fail to apply the appropriate legal test or standard. She applied, as the parties
stipulated, the appropriate test to determine whether admiralty jurisdiction exists. Although
Judge Furse’s analysis is brief due to her wholesale reliance on In Re Mission Bay Jet Sports,
LLC, due to the factual similarity of that case to the facts here Judge Furse did not apply the
connection test incorrectly.
One of the key determinations of In Re Mission Bay Jet Sports, LLC was that because “a
vessel from which a passenger goes overboard in navigable waters would likely stop to search
and rescue [and] call for assistance from others” the features “of an incident of this class could
have a potentially disruptive impact” on maritime activity.” 22 The Ninth Circuit’s determination
20
Id. at 1130.
21
Order at 3.
22
In Re Mission Bay Jet Sports, LLC, 570 F.3d at 1129.
4
is readily applicable to the incident at issue in this case. Judge Furse’s decision to adopt the
rationale of In Re Mission Bay Jet Sports, LLC is sound. The Objection is overruled.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. and
Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd.’s Objection 23 is OVERRULED and the Order 24 of the
Magistrate Judge is AFFIRMED.
Signed September 10, 2018
BY THE COURT
________________________________________
David Nuffer
United States District Judge
23
Defendants Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. and Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd.’s Objection to Magistrate Judge
Furse’s Order Denying Motion to Strike Allegations of Admiralty Jurisdiction, docket no. 124, filed May 10, 2018.
24
Order Denying Kawasaki Defendants’ Motion to Strike Allegations of Admiralty Jurisdiction (ECF No. 74),
docket no. 117, filed April 26, 2018.
5
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?