In the Matter of the Complaint of Lyon Shipyard, Inc., as Owner of the Barge RIG ONE with mounted Crawler Crane Manitowoc 4000W for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION denying 15 Motion to Enter Stipulation and to Lift Injunction and Stay of Proceedings. The parties are DIRECTED to contact the Calendar Clerk within seven (7) days of entry of this Memorandum Opinion to set a Scheduling Conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). A copy of this Memorandum Opinion was forwarded to all counsel of record on 3/9/15. Signed by Chief District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith and filed on 3/9/15. (tbro)

FILED
UNITED

STATES

DISTRICT

EASTERN DISTRICT

COURT

MAR -9 2015

OF VIRGINIA

Norfolk Division

IN THE

MATTER

OF THE

LYON SHIPYARD,
THE

BARGE

CRAWLER

INC.,

RIG

CRANE

EXONERATION

COMPLAINT

ONE

AS

WITH

OR

i QUIRT

OF

OWNER OF
ACTION

MOUNTED

MANITOWOC

FROM

CI I UK, U :•;. I

NO.

2:14cv422

4 0 00W FOR

LIMITATION

OF

LIABILITY

MEMORANDUM

This

Jr.'s

Lift

matter

("Claimant

Injunction

October

29,

comes

before

Monroe")

and

2014.

ECF

the

Motion

Stay

of

No.

OPINION

court

to

on

Enter

Proceedings

15.

This

William

H.

Monroe,

Stipulation

("Motion"),

matter

has

and

to

filed

on

been

fully

briefed, and a hearing was held on February 20, 2015.
The

resolution

of

this

Motion

may

ultimately

determine

whether Claimant Monroe's wrongful death suit will be litigated
in state court or federal court. See Pickle v. Char Lee Seafood,
Inc. ,

174

omitted)

F.3d

("If,

444,

451

however,

the

(4th

Cir.

district

1999)

(internal

court denies

citations

limitation of

liability, the reason for concursus1 disappears .... With the
reason for concursus and restraint of other proceedings removed,
no reason would remain to deprive the claimants of their choice

A concursus occurs when all claims are marshaled "to ensure the
prompt and economical disposition of controversies in which

there are often a multitude of claimants." Maryland Cas. Co. v.
Cushing, 347 U.S. 409, 415 (1954). This procedure is at the
"heart" of the limitation of liability system. Id. at 414.

of

forum.").

Claimant

Monroe

wants

this

court

to

lift

its

injunction and allow the wrongful death case to proceed in state
court,

while

Lyon

Shipyard,

Inc.

("Lyon")

would

litigate the wrongful death suit in federal court.

Dredge and Dock,

LLC

("Great

Lakes"),

which has

briefings or stipulations related to this issue,

issue to be litigated in this court,
to

remove

the

proceeding,

case

from

state

and through its

to

pointedly

said

wrongful death suit

to

that,

federal

Great Lakes

not

filed any

would like the

court

representation to

while

proceed in

to

as evidenced by its attempt

hearing on February 20, 2015. At that hearing,
Lakes

prefer

in

the

an

earlier

court at

the

counsel for Great

this

court

may

allow

the

state

court,

its

claims

for

loss of use and ongoing attorneys'

fees have only been brought

before this court, and that it has no intention of filing crossclaims in state court, as long as there is a pending limitation
action before this court.
I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 16, 2014,

Claimant Monroe,

John Robert McCullen's estate,
pursuant
Workers'

to

33

U.S.C.

filed a wrongful death action

§ 905(b)

Compensation Act

as the Administrator of

of

the

(the "LHWCA")

Longshore

and

Harbor

in the Circuit Court for

the City of Norfolk, Virginia.2 The complaint seeks compensatory

Although

28

U.S.C.

§ 1333(1)

gives

federal

district

courts

exclusive jurisdiction over Ma]ny civil case of admiralty or
2

and

punitive

($12,000,000)
Lakes.

damages
jointly

The decedent,

totaling

and

twelve

severally

McCullen,

million

against

Lyon

dollars
and

Great

was a machinist employed by Lyon

who was killed while working on a dredge owned and operated by
Great

Lakes,

the DODGE

barge owned by Lyon,

On

May

19,

ISLAND,

Lyon

filed

On

remove

June 2,
the

2014,

case

a

Plea

in

state court claims against

that the LHWCA precluded them.
16.

collided with a

to

Great
the

Monroe's Mem.

Lakes

United

filed

States

a

Bar

to

case

was

June 27, 2014,
case,

assigned
Lyon

to

filed

Judge

a

Motion

Supp. at 2, ECF No.

Notice

of

District

Raymond
to

dismiss

it on the grounds

A.

Dismiss

Removal

Court

Eastern District of Virginia. See Case No. 2:14cv264,

The

derrick

the RIG ONE.

2014,

Claimant Monroe's

when it

in

for

to
the

ECF No. 1.

Jackson.
the

On

federal

on the same grounds that it raised in its state court Plea

in Bar.

Id. , ECF No.

10.

Claimant Monroe then filed a Motion to

Remand the case to state court on July 2, 2014.

Id. , ECF No. 13.

maritime jurisdiction," the savings to suitors clause in the
same statute qualifies this exclusive jurisdiction by "saving to
suitors in all cases other remedies to which they are otherwise
entitled." 28 U.S.C. § 1333(a). This clause has been interpreted
to "leave[] state courts competent to adjudicate maritime causes
of action in proceedings in personam." Offshore Logistics, Inc.
v. Tallentire,

477 U.S.

207,

222

(1986). Thus,

state courts have

concurrent jurisdiction over admiralty cases that can be pursued
in personam in state court, although federal law applies because
such
suits
remain
admiralty
cases.
Wrecked, & Abandoned Vessel, Believed

F.2d 525,

533

n.12

referred to as the

(5th Cir.

1991).

"reverse-Erie"

Zych
to be

This

doctrine.

v.
Unidentified,
the Seabird, 941
requirement has been

Id.

On July 8, 2014,
Motion

to

Jackson

Claimant Monroe

Dismiss.

issued

a

federal case to

Id. ,

ECF

No.

Memorandum

filed an Opposition to
16.

On

Opinion

Lyon's

August 5, 2014,

and

Order

the state court for lack of

Judge

remanding

the

complete diversity

and rendering Lyon's Motion to Dismiss moot. Id., ECF No. 26.

On August
this

court,

liability

Rule

19,

2014,

in which it

pursuant

seeks

46

filed

a

limitation complaint

exoneration from or

U.S.C.

in

limitation of

§§ 3 0501

et

seq.

Procedure Supplemental Rule

of Civil

to

Lyon

and

F.

Compl.

at

Federal

1,

ECF

No. 1. In its limitation complaint, Lyon submitted an ad interim
stipulation

for

$1,200,000,

plus

Supplemental

F,

2014,

Lyon and Great
Pursuant

value

$1,000

Rule

September 10,

No. 6.

the

of

for

this

the

vessel

costs.

court

Id.

in

at

issued

the

sum

of

Pursuant

to

injunction

on

5.

an

staying the state court proceeding against

Lakes.

Order

to

this

for

Supp.

injunction

Rule

F

Inj . at

Order,

the

3,

ECF

ad interim

stipulation of the value of Lyon's interest in the barge RIG ONE
with

mounted

tackle,

Crawler

Crane

appurtenances,

Manitowoc

fittings

and

4 000W

freight

set to be $1,200,000. Id.3 On the same day,
Notice

of

Liability,

Complaint

for

instructing

Exoneration

all

persons

from

to

and

all

of

its

then pending,

was

the court issued a
or

file

Limitation

any

claims

of

by

3 The Order further stated that any party may move the court to
increase
Supp.

or decrease

the amount

Rule F Inj. at 2.

of the stipulation.

Order

for

October 15,

2014, and, if they wished to contest Lyon's right to

exoneration from or limitation of

to

the

from

limitation complaint.

or

Limitation

directed
local

Lyon

to

newspaper,

of

liability,

Notice

Liability

publish

of

Compl.

1,

ECF

at

notice

in

Order for Supp.

The

Rule

parties

filed

answers

No.

F Inj.

and

for

an answer

Exoneration

7.

The

court

Virginian-Pilot,

direction Lyon fully complied. Aff. of Pub.,

Two

to file

at 2,

the

with which

ECF No. 14.

claims

in

the

limitation

action.

On September 25, 2014,

Claimant Monroe filed his Answer

to

Complaint

in

the

and

Claim,

which

he

concedes

that

damages of $12,000,000 being sought "will exceed the
fund"

of

$1,200,000.

Great

Lakes

Complaint
Great

dredge

("Claimant

and

Lakes

Claim

seeks

DODGE

attorneys'

fees

Lakes'

Lakes'

Claim

Lakes")

filed

October 15, 2014.

$161,000

as

in damages

well

incurred

as

in

its

ECF

from

8,

No.

loss

action,

ECF No.

Answer

12.
of

indemnification
this

limitation

to

the

Claimant

use

for

10.

of

the

costs

and

as

of

which,

was a claimed total of approximately $50,000.

Answer

is

Great

on

ISLAND,

October 15, 2014,
Great

Monroe's Answer & Claim at

the

&

Claim at

$211,000,

plus

5-6.

Thus,

at

this

any

costs

and

time,

attorney's

Great

fees

incurred during the pendency of the McCullen suit. Id.4

Great
court.

Lakes

has

not

filed any cross-claims

in Virginia

state

On

October

Motion,

ECF

Stip. ,

ECF

November 4,

29,

No.

15,

No.
2014,

2014,

Claimant

with

15-1.

an

Monroe

attached

The

filed

the

stipulation.

stipulation

was

instant

Original

amended

and sets forth:

1) he will not challenge Lyon's right to seek a
determination of the privilege of limitation of
liability before this court after a trial on the
merits in state court, although he specifically
reserves
the
right
to
deny and contest
all
allegations made in the complaint for limitation
of liability;
2) he will not enforce any judgment obtained in
any tribunal in excess of an amount equal to or
less

than

the

limitation

court,

the

amount

of

action

the

has

limitation

been

fund until

heard

by

this

and in no event will he seek to enforce an

excess judgment achieved in any tribunal against
Lyon or any other liable parties who may make
cross-claims or claims of any kind against Lyon
if it will expose Lyon to liability in excess of
the limitation fund pending the adjudication by
this

court

of

the

issue

of

limitation

of

liability;
3)
this
court
has
exclusive
and
continuing
jurisdiction
relating
to
the
limitation
of
liability issue, and that he waives all claims of
res
judicata regarding Lyon's right to limit
liability based on any judgment
obtained
in
either state court or any other tribunal,
and
that he will not seek a judgment on the issue of
Lyon's right to limitation of liability before
any other tribunal;

4) the value of Lyon's interest in the barge RIG
ONE to be $1,200,000, but reserving the right to
move for an increase in value pursuant to Rule F
if the limitation of liability issue is litigated
before this court;

5)

if

and/or

Lyon

is

held

attorneys'

responsible

fees

and

for

costs

loss

against

of

use

a

co-

on

liable defendant or party seeking indemnification
attorneys' fees and costs, that such claim
will have priority over his own;
for

6)
that the amount of his claim for damages
exceeds the ad interim stipulation for Lyon's
interest in the barge RIG ONE,
and that the
limitation fund in this proceeding is inadequate
to compensate him for the injuries and damages in
this case;

and

7) he will immediately supplement, modify,
or
amend his stipulation to cure any deficiencies
and to adequately protect Lyon from the risk of
any excess judgment or impairment to its right to
seek limitation of liability exclusively before
this

court.

Am. Stip. 1-7, ECF No. 17;5 see also Original Stip. 1-6.6
On November 4,

2 014,

Claimant Monroe submitted a Memorandum

in Support of his Motion to Lift the Injunction
Support") ,

arguing

that

Lyon

is

adequately

("Memorandum in

protected

by

his

stipulations against a finding of liability greater than that of
the limitation fund of $1,200,000. Mem. Supp. at 4, ECF No. 16.
On

November

18,

2014,

Opposition to Motion to
and Stay of

Proceedings"

it

that

argues

limitation

5 Despite

a

its

"Memorandum

claimant

with

as

Monroe's

in

a

insufficient

a

"block

amended

in

Injunction

("Memorandum in Opposition"),

formatted

paraphrase of Claimant
three pages long.

filed

Enter Stipulations and Lift

single

proceeding

being

Lyon

in which

multiple-claimant

funds

quote,"

may

this

stipulation,

not

is

which

a
is

6 The only difference between the original stipulation and the
amended stipulation
amended stipulation.

is

the

inclusion

of

Stipulation

4

in

the

unilaterally

draft

proceedings.

Mem.

stipulations

Opp'n at

his Reply Memorandum

to

lift

3, ECF No.

("Reply")

a

18.

stay of

state

Claimant Monroe filed

on November 21,

2014,

asserting

that the court may lift the stay because the shipowner,

adequately protected by his

court

stipulations despite

the

Lyon,

is

fact that

Claimant Great Lakes has not made stipulations of its own. Reply
at

5,

ECF No.

19.

Claimant

Great

Lakes

has

not

submitted any

filings beyond its Claim in the instant proceeding.
The

court

held

February 20, 2 015,

a

hearing

ECF No.

20,

after

on
which

the
it

Motion

took

the

on

matter

under review.
II.

" [D]istrict
under

courts

STANDARD

have

the Limitation Act,

OF

REVIEW

jurisdiction over actions

arising

and they have discretion to

stay or

dismiss Limitation Act proceedings

to allow a suitor to pursue

his claims in state court." Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine,
531

U.S.

438,

454

(2001) .

If

the

court

concludes

Inc.,

that

the

shipowner's right to limitation will not be adequately protected

if the stay is lifted,
the

merits

limitation.

and
Id.

the court

decide

both

However,

if

limitation is protected,

should proceed to adjudicate

the
the

issues

of

shipowner's

liability
right

to

the decision to grant or dissolve

and
seek
the

injunction and stay of state court proceedings is one within the
court's discretion.

Id.

8

III.

The

key

issue

ANALYSIS

here

is

whether

Claimant

Monroe's

stipulations, in particular Stipulation 5, which gives any claim
of

Great Lakes priority over Monroe's

Claim,

are

sufficient to

protect Lyon. Am. Stip. 5. The court finds that they are not.

Shipowners facing potential liability from an accident may
file a complaint in federal court seeking protection under the
Limitation of Liability Act,

in relevant part,
vessel

.

.

.

intended

to

not

protect

right

531 U.S.
to

the

at 446.

Federal Rule of Civil

value

of

§ 30505(a).7 Thus,

shipowners

limitation by

of Liability).

exceed

46 U.S.C.

liability may exceed the
Lewis,

§§ 30501 et seq.,

which,

states that "the liability of the owner of a

shall

pending freight."

46 U.S.C.

value of

from

cases

the

vessel

the

vessel

this statute is
in

which

and its

their

freight.

Shipowners are allowed to protect their
following

the

procedures

enumerated

Procedure Supplemental Rule F

suitors"
"[t]he

in

(Limitation

Id. at 441.

As the United States Supreme Court recognized in Lewis,

Limitation of

and

Liability Act

clause
district

of

28

is

U.S.C.

courts

exclusive of the courts of

shall

in

tension with the

§ 1333(1),
have

the States,

which

original
of

the

"saving to

provides

that

jurisdiction,

. . . any civil case

7 However, the shipowner is only protected by this statute if the
circumstances causing any injury or loss occurred "without
privity or knowledge of the owner." 46 U.S.C. § 30505(b).

the

of

admiralty or maritime jurisdiction,

saving to suitors in all

cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled."

Id. at 444

(emphasis in original)

"Thus,

saving to

the

suitors

concurrent jurisdiction of
maritime claims."

Id.

(quoting 28 U.S.C.

clause preserves

§ 1333(1)).

remedies

and the

state courts over some admiralty and

at 445.

The tension between the savings to

suitors clause and the Limitation of Liability Act is apparent,
because one gives plaintiffs

the right

to

including,

in

court,

allows

a

as

here,

shipowner

a
to

suit
avail

state

itself

of

choose

the

their remedy,

while
federal

the

other

courts

to

limit liability. Id. at 448.
In

proper

order

forum

whether,

if

dissolved,
liability

district

to

to
the

resolve

hear

court

protected,

tension,

case,

a

and

district

to

determine

court

must

the

assess

injunction against alternative proceedings were

the
would

the

this

shipowner's
be

"right

adequately

determines

to

seek

protected."

that

the

Id.

shipowner

limitation
at

is

then the injunction should be dissolved,

federal court may nevertheless

jurisdiction over

shipowner's

would not

be

it.

Id.

at

If

the

adequately
although the

stay the limitation of

action and retain

right

4 51.

of

liability

453-54.

If

the

adequately

protected,

then

the

district court must proceed to adjudicate,

without a

jury,

the

claims of liability. Id. at 448.

10

The

Supreme

shipowner's
they are
"where

Court

rights

not.

there

stipulations]

are

The
is

in

Lewis

sufficiently

shipowner's

only

a

group of

two

examples

protected,

rights

single

are

claimant

and

where

two

a

where

adequately protected
[who

made

sufficient

... or where the total claims do not exceed the

value of the limitation fund."

shipowner's

noted

rights

would

claimants

not

Id.

be

at

451.

On the other hand,

adequately protected where

cannot agree on appropriate

a

"a

stipulations or

there is uncertainty concerning the adequacy of the fund or the
number of claims."
single claimant,
did not abuse

Id.

at 454.

In Lewis,

which involved only a

the Supreme Court held that the district court

its discretion in finding that

the shipowner was

adequately protected when the claimant stipulated that his claim
would not exceed the

res

judicata with

limitation fund,

respect

to

he waived any defense of

limitation

of

liability,

and

the

district court stayed the limitation proceedings while retaining

jurisdiction to act

"if the state court proceedings jeopardized

the

rights

vessel

owner's

under

the

Limitation

that

multiple

Act."

Id.

at

453-54.

It

is

generally

accepted

claimants

transform their case into the functional equivalent of
claim situation through the use of
re

Beiswenger

1996);

Enters.

Gorman v.

Corp.,

Cerasia,

2

86

appropriate
F.3d

F.3d 519,

11

1032,

526

may

a single

stipulations.
1038

(3d Cir.

In

(11th

Cir.

1993).

In a

case

involving multiple

these

stipulations

claimants,

in

order

all
to

claimants must
adequately

shipowner's right to limit liability. Lewis,
This

Great

case

Lakes,

involves

has

protect

Lyon's

argues

that

stipulation
claims,

its

are

claimants,

entered

right

to

into

Claimant

sufficient

to

of

whom,

Although

Lakes

adequately

that

proceedings

may

owner's

Great
not

Lakes,
be

right

the

protect

injunction

lifted.
to

Id.

at

limitation

4 54

over

Lyon,

Monroe

and

be

own

plain

without a

stay

not

the

his

the

of

(holding

will

would

particularly

the Supreme Court makes it apparent that,

stipulation by

the

Claimant

Claimant

priority

to

at 454.

stipulations

stipulations,

Great

protect

531 U.S.

one

any

limitation.

unilateral

giving

language of

vessel

not

two

agree

state

that

"the

adequately

protected - where for example a group of claimants cannot agree
on appropriate stipulations").
The

Court

extensive

of

Appeals

experience

in

for

the

Fifth

admiralty

Circuit,

law,

has

a

court

with

that

one

held

claimant's unilateral stipulations are not sufficient to lift an

injunction

and

stay

of

state

court

proceedings

when

other

claimants have not entered into stipulations of their own. Odeco
Oil & Gas Co.,

Cir.

1996) .

claimants'

In

Drilling Div.

Odeco,

claims

take precedence

for

one

v.

Bonnette,

claimant

indemnification

over any claim of
12

his

74

F.3d 671,

stipulated
of

own.

that

defense

Id.

at

675

(5th

his

co-

costs

673

would

n.4.

He

also stipulated that he would not pursue any claim against these

co-claimants that would expose the limitation plaintiff to any
liability

in

excess

of

the

ad

interim

673. Despite these stipulations,

co-claimants'
that

the

failure

shipowner

claimants

"ha[d]

potential

to

file

was

only

not

stipulations

protected

Id.

fund.

Id. at

the Fifth Circuit held that the

partial

liability."

limitation

their

because

control

at

of

over

675.

In

the

[the

own meant
stipulating

shipowner's]

other

words,

the

stipulations made by one claimant would not protect against the
non-stipulating

defense
the

costs,

co-claimants'

which had the

limitation fund.

Id.

variable

potential

(noting that

attorneys'

to
the

fees

exceed the
court was

and

value
"not

of

in a

position to predict the possible developments in the state court

proceedings").

Thus,

the

rule

in the

Fifth

Circuit

is clear:

"When the aggregate of the damages being sought by all claimants
exceeds

cannot
that

the

value

the

concursus,

unless

proceed

of

all

claimants

adequately

protects

Towing Co., 42 F.3d 312,

the

actions

enter

shipowner."

316 (5th Cir.

in

into
In

state

a

court

stipulation

re

Port

Arthur

1995) .

Other courts have recognized the necessity of all claimants

entering into protective stipulations.
F.3d

Third

519,

527-28

Circuit

multiple-claim

(3d Cir.

held

that,

limitation

1993),

the

In Gorman v.
Court

of

Appeals

although

the

stipulations

action

were

initially

13

Cerasia,
for

2

the

filed in

a

appropriate,

once

a

co-defendant

filed

a

new

claim

for

contribution

in

both

the state and federal actions while the appeal was pending,
matter had to

be

stipulations,

including one by the co-claimant,

at

remanded

The

527-28.

court

to

the

district

emphasized

court

that

Admiralty

establish

addition,
83

F.3d

Seventh

Court

his

cannot

claim

in

grant

multiple-claims-

to

tribunal."

(7th

1996),

noted

Circuit

Cir.

that

shipowner necessitate

the

Court

of

"multiple

federal

court

a

claimant

to

at

Id.

in In re Complaint of McCarty Bros.
821

Id.

such dimension that

permission

another

additional

were filed.

"a

inadequate- fund limitation proceeding is of

an

until

the

In

525.

Co/Clark Bridge,
Appeals

claims

for

against

adjudication."

the

the

Id.

at

832

support

of

his

(emphasis added).

Claimant

Monroe

points

to

two

cases

in

position that unilateral stipulations are sufficient to protect
a limitation plaintiff in a multiple-claimant scenario. Monroe's
Reply at 1-3. In In re Dammers & Vanderheide & Scheepvaart Maats
Christina

B.V.,

836

F.3d

750

(2d

Cir.

1988),

the

Court

of

Appeals for the Second Circuit did hold that the district court
was correct to

proceedings

lift the injunction and stay of

after

two

claimants

entered

the state court

into

stipulations,

despite the fact that other potential claimants existed. Id. at
756, 760. However,

the court did so on the understanding that if

the state court co-defendants,

who had not filed a claim against
14

the

shipowner

in

either

indemnification
[district]
claims

at

against

or

the

federal

court,

limitation

were

to

seek

plaintiff,

"the

court would be obligated to grant a stay of any such

unless

stipulations
Id.

state

the

third

preserving

the

parties

executed

shipowners'

right

appropriate

to

limitation."

758-59.

Claimant Monroe primarily relies upon the Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit's decision of

In re Beiswenger Enters.

Corp.,

86

The

found

that

F.3d

sufficient

1032

the
to

proceedings,

(11th

Cir.

stipulations

lift

the

1996).

filed

court

some

and

injunction

by

stay

in Beiswenger

claimants
of

state

were
court

despite the fact that potential third party claims

for indemnity and contribution were possible.

Id.

at

1043.

The

court stated that "the vessel owner can be protected from excess

liability

parties

at

the

hands

themselves

Id.

In Beiswenger,

the

stipulation

do

of

third

not

enter

part of

that

any

against the shipowner,

parties

any

even

if

protective

this protection came

award

of

attorneys'

in favor of

those

third

stipulations."
in the form of

and

costs

would have

any party,

fees

first

priority. Id. at 1040.
However,

stipulating
Great

Lakes

proceeding,

in

both

parties
has

which

were

filed

it

Damme rs

and

potential
an

wants

actual

to be
15

Beiswenger,

claimants.
claim

in

adjudicated

In
this

the

non-

this

case,

limitation

in federal

court.

Despite

Claimant

without

a

Monroe

difference,"

phrasing

Monroe's

this

Reply

to

be

at

"distinction

this

4,

a

distinction

moves the claimant to a situation that falls squarely within the
Supreme Court's prohibition on lifting the
of state court proceedings,

when multiple claimants cannot agree

to sufficient stipulations. See Lewis,
Even

if

the

court

injunction and stay

did

have

531 U.S.

the

at 454.

discretion

to

lift

the

injunction and stay of state court proceedings at this time,
would not
Great

do

Lakes

so
has

in

the

not

interest

filed

a

of

judicial

cross-claim

attorneys'

intention of

for

fees in the state court action,

it

has

no

doing

so.

Thus,

economy.
loss

it

Claimant

of

use

or

and it has said that

if

this

court

were

to

allow the wrongful death suit to proceed in state court at this
time,

it

Lakes'

would

claims,

wrongful

nonetheless
which

death

it

suit

had

If,

not have

the right

been

the

and

stay

in the future,

to

to

would be

court system and Great Lakes'
definite.

have

limit

injunction

of

adjudicate

unable

fully

to

do

Claimant
until

adjudicated

in

Great

after

the

the

state

legal fees would be finalized and
the court determines that Lyon does

its

liability,

state

court

the

court may lift

proceedings,

as

there

will no longer be any need for the claims to be consolidated in
a concursus.

4 51

(4th Cir.

See Pickle v.

Char Lee Seafood,

Inc.,

174 F.3d 444,

1999); supra note 1 & accompanying text.

16

IV.

CONCLUSION

Claimant Monroe's unilateral
to

protect

While

loss

Lyon

it appears

of

use

attorneys'

fund,

of

in

this

stipulations are insufficient

multiple-claimant

limitation

highly unlikely that Great

the

dredge

fees and costs,

DODGE

ONE

Lakes'

for

action.

Claim for

$161,000,

plus

will exceed the $1,200,000 limitation

it is not a certainty.

Lyon has a right to litigate the

limitation of liability action in this federal court, given the
multiple

claims

and

the

Claimant Monroe's Motion

lack

of

certainty

thereon.

Thus,

to Lift

the Injunction and Stay of

State Court

Proceedings is DENIED.

The parties are DIRECTED to

contact

Calendar

seven

the

Clerk within

(7)

days

of

entry of

this Memorandum Opinion to set a Scheduling Conference pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b).

The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion to counsel for the parties.
IT

IS

SO

ORDERED.

/s/

Rebecca Beach Smith
TT .
Chief
United States District Judge _£g£_
REBECCA BEACH

SMITH

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

°1 ,-

March M

2015

17