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
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?