Barnes v. Sea Haw. Rafting, LLC
| Decision Date | 22 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 13-00002 ACK-RLP |
| Parties | CHAD BARRY BARNES, Plaintiff, v. SEA HAWAII RAFTING, LLC, KRIS HENRY, M/V TEHANI, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii |
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff Chad Berry Barnes's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Unseaworthiness, Negligence Per Se, and Jones Act Negligence. (Doc. No. 108.) As to Count XII of the First Amended Complaint (Barnes's negligence per se claim), the Court GRANTS the Motion as to Defendant Sea Hawaii Rafting, LLC, but DENIES it as to the remaining Defendants. The Court DENIES the Motion as to Counts I and II. In addition, the Court DISMISSES all claims against Defendant M/V Tehani, in rem, for lack of jurisdiction.
This matter arises under admiralty law. Plaintiff Chad Berry Barnes claims he was injured while working as a seaman aboard the vessel M/V TEHANI. Defendant Sea Hawaii Rafting, LLC is the owner of the Tehani, and Defendant Kris K. Henry is the Master of Vessel of the Tehani and sole owner and manager of Sea Hawaii Rafting, LLC. The vessel is a 25-foot rigid-hull inflatable boat powered by twin outboard engines. (Def.'s CSF, Henry Decl. ¶ 3.)
On July 3, 2012, the date of the accident in question, Barnes states that he was called into work to replace a deck hand who was unable to work as scheduled. (Pl.'s CSF, Ex. J (Barnes Aff.) at ¶ 3.) At the time of the accident, Henry and Barnes were preparing the vessel for an evening snorkel trip. (Id. ¶ 4.) Henry was backing the Tehani, which was on a trailer, into the water at the Honokohau Small Boat Harbor in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. (Def.'s CSF ¶ 9.) Once the vessel was lowered into the water, Henry instructed Barnes to start the engine; when Barnes did so, there was an explosion from under the floorboards which caused parts of the vessel to be thrown into the air, striking Barnes on the back of the head and causing his claimed injuries. (Pl.'s CSF, Ex. E (Coast Guard Investigator Statement Form) at 1; Def.'s CSF ¶¶ 9-10.)
The explosion and fire appear to have been caused by fuel that had leaked out of the fuel tank through a missing bolt in the fuel tank sender gauge; the fuel leaked into the bilge and ignited when Barnes started the engine. (Def.'s CSF ¶¶ 14-15; Pl.'s CSF, Ex. C (Offshore Marine Surveyors Field Report) at 1.)
On January 1, 2013, Barnes filed a Verified Complaint against Sea Hawaii Rafting, LLC, Kris Henry, and a number of Doe defendants, in personum, and M/V TEHANI, HA-1629 CP, and her engines, equipment, tackle, stores, furnishings, cargo and freight, in rem. (Doc. No. 1.) Barnes filed his unverified First Amended Complaint on May 21, 2014. (Doc. No. 91 ("FAC").) In the First Amended Complaint, Barnes brings the following claims: (1) negligence under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688, against the in personam Defendants (Count I); (2) unseaworthiness as against the M/V TEHANI, in rem, and the in personam Defendants (Count II); (3) maintenance, cure, and wages under general maritime law (Count III); (4) compensation and recovery for negligence pursuant to the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 905, against the in personam and in rem Defendants (Counts IV-VI); (5) individual liability of Defendant Kris Henry and the Doe Defendants for the negligence of Sea Hawaii Rafting, pursuant to a theory of "piercing the veil of limited liability" (Count VII); (6) intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress as against all Defendants (Count VIII); and Jones Act negligence per se (Count XII).1 (Id. ¶¶ 23-71.) OnJuly 7, 2014, Defendants Kris Henry, M/V Tehani, and Sea Hawaii Rafting, LLC filed their Answer to the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 107.)
On August 20, 2013, Barnes filed a Motion for Summary Judgment for Payment of Maintenance and Cure, asking for judgment as to Count III of his complaint. (Doc. No. 25.) On November 15, 2013, the Court issued its Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment for Payment of Maintenance and Cure. (Doc. No. 44.) In the Order, the Court found that Barnes is entitled to maintenance and cure from July 3, 2012 (the date of his injury) until he reaches maximum cure, and that Barnes had sufficiently proffered evidence that his actual daily expenses are approximately $68 per day. (Id. at 9, 12.) The Court denied Barnes's motion as to the appropriateamount of maintenance and cure; however, finding that Barnes failed to proffer sufficient evidence to demonstrate the reasonable amount of maintenance for a seaman in Barnes's locality, and failed to prove his medical expenses.2 (Id. at 18.)
On January 27, 2014, Barnes filed a second Motion for Summary Judgment for Payment of Maintenance. (Doc. No. 58.) The Court denied the motion on April 15, 2014, concluding that issues of fact precluded a determination as a matter of law on the issue of the appropriate rate of maintenance.3 (Doc. No. 77.) On May 30, 2014, Barnes filed his Third Motion for Summary Judgment for Payment of Maintenance. (Doc. No. 94.) In addition, on July 1, 2014, Barnes filed a Motion for Summary Judgment for Payment of Cure. (Doc. Nos. 103.) The Court issued orders denying both motions on September 2, 2014. (Doc. Nos. 120, 121.)
On July 7, 2014, Barnes filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment as to Unseaworthiness, Negligence Per Se, and Jones Act Negligence, along with a concise statement of facts andnumerous exhibits.4 (Doc. Nos. 108 & 109.) On September 29, 2014, Defendants filed their memorandum in opposition to the Motion, along with a concise statement of facts and exhibits. (Doc. Nos. 124 & 125.) Barnes did not file a reply.5
A hearing on the Motion was originally scheduled for November 17, 2014; however, on November 3, 2014, Defendant Kris Henry filed a Notice of Filing of Bankruptcy with this Court, indicating that he had filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Hawaii. (Doc. No. 142.) Likewise, on November 13, 2014, Defendant Sea Hawaii Rafting, LLC filed Notice with the Court that it had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Hawaii. (Doc. No. 148.) The Court therefore stayed the instant case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). (Doc. No. 152.) On June 22, 2015, Barnes filed a notice with this Court that the bankruptcy judge had partially lifted the automatic stayas to Defendant Kris Henry to allow the Court to "value to its conclusion" Barnes's claim against him.6 (Doc. No. 155.)
On November 25, 2015, the bankruptcy judge partially lifted the automatic stay as to Defendant Sea Hawaii Rafting, to permit this Court "to adjudicate the validity, extent, amount, and date of perfection of any maritime lien claim by Chad Barnes against the assets of the bankruptcy estate." (Doc. No. 182, Ex. B.) The stay was not lifted, however, for any other purpose, including with respect to the enforcement of any such maritime lien.7
In light of the lifting of the bankruptcy stays, the Court held the hearing on the instant Motion on December 16, 2015. At the hearing, counsel for Barnes appeared, as well as counsel for Defendant Henry (who also represents Henry in his bankruptcy proceeding), and counsel for the bankruptcy trustee in the Sea Hawaii Rafting bankruptcy proceeding.8
Summary judgment is appropriate when a "movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The central issue is "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986).
The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If that burden has been met, the nonmoving party must then come forward and establish the specific material facts in dispute to survive summary judgment. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 588 (1986). The Court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Id. at 587.
In supporting a factual position, a party must "cit[e] to particular parts of materials in the record . . . or show[] that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). The nonmoving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 585. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48 (emphasis in original). Also, "[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the non-moving party's position is not sufficient[]" to defeat summary judgment. Triton Energy Corp. v. Square D Co., 68 F.3d 1216, 1221 (9th Cir. 1995). Likewise, the nonmoving party "cannot defeat summary judgment with allegations in the complaint, or with unsupported conjecture or conclusory statements." Hernandez v. Spacelabs Med. Inc., 343 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 2003).
As an initial matter, the Court must determine the extent to which it may proceed in...
To continue reading
Request your trial