In re Holoholo, Civ. No. 79-0324A
Court | United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Hawaii) |
Writing for the Court | SAMUEL P. KING |
Citation | 512 F. Supp. 889 |
Parties | In re HOLOHOLO Barbara K. TRENS, individually and as personal representative of Mike Julio Trens, deceased, Plaintiff, v. The UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII, a corporation; the Research Corporation of the University of Hawaii, a corporation; State of Hawaii, a sovereign corporation; the University of California, a corporation; John Laney; and Arthur F. Stubenberg, Defendants. Robert RUSECKAS, personal representative of the estate of James Edward Ruseckas, deceased, Plaintiff, v. The UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII, a corporation; the Research Corporation of the University of Hawaii, a corporation; State of Hawaii, a sovereign corporation; the University of California, a corporation; John Laney; and Arthur D. Stubenberg, as personal representative of the estate of Arthur F. Stubenberg, Defendants. Lynne Ann HAROUN, individually and as executrix of the estate of Stephan Randall Shannon, deceased, and Joann D. Shannon, Plaintiffs, v. The UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII, a corporation; the Research Corporation of the University of Hawaii, a corporation; State of Hawaii, a sovereign state; the University of California, a corporation; Michael Vincent Paulin, as guardian of the property of John Laney, Sr., deceased; and Arthur D. Stubenberg, as personal representative of the estate of Arthur F. Stubenberg, deceased, Defendants. Youngsook Kim HARVEY, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Robert R. Harvey, deceased; Andrew Kim Weaver; Sarah Kim Weaver; and Susan W. Niemeyer, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Gary C. Niemeyer, deceased, Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII, a corporation; Research Corporation of the University of Hawaii, a corporation; State of Hawaii, a sovereign state; University of California, a corporation; Michael Vincent Paulin, as guardian of the property of John Laney, Sr., deceased, and a legal representative of the estate of John Laney, Sr., deceased; Arthur D. Stubenberg, as personal representative of the estate of Arthur F. Stubenberg, deceased; and Barbara K. Trens, as personal representative of the estate of Mike Julio Trens, deceased, Defendants. Nancy J. LAIRD, individually, as personal representative of Norman P. Laird, deceased, and as guardian ad litem for Kristine Renee Laird, a minor, Plaintiffs, v. The UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII, a corporation; the Research Corporation of the University of Hawaii, a corporation; the University of California, a corporation; Michael Vincent Paulin, as guardian of the property of John Laney, Sr., deceased; Arthur D. Stubenberg, as personal representative of the estate of Arthur F. Stubenberg, deceased, Defendants. Carol A. CHARNELL, individually, as personal representative of Robert Lewis Charnell, deceased, and as guardian ad litem for Mareline Charnell and Erika Charnell, minors, Plaintiffs, v. The UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII, a corporation; the Research Corporation of the University of Hawaii, a corporation; State of Hawaii, a sovereign corporation; the University of California, a corporation; Michael Vincent Paulin, as guardian of the property of John Laney, Sr., deceased; Arthur D. Stubenberg, as personal representative of the estate of Arthur F. Stubenberg, deceased, Defendants. |
Decision Date | 13 April 1981 |
Docket Number | 79-0631,79-0583,Civ. No. 79-0324A,80-0053 and 80-0054.,79-0353 |
Carlton E. Russell, Long Beach, Cal., David C. McClung, Honolulu, Hawaii, for plaintiff in No. 79-0324.
Stuart M. Cowan, Robert E. Rau, Cowan & Frey, Honolulu, Hawaii, for plaintiff in No. 79-0353.
John S. Edmunds, Charles W. Crumpton, Edmunds & Hall, Honolulu, Hawaii, for plaintiffs in Nos. 79-0583, 80-0053 and 80-0054.
David C. Schutter, Reinhard Mohr, Honolulu, Hawaii, for plaintiffs in No. 79-0631.
Douglas Hartwich, Short & Cressman, Seattle, Wash., for plaintiffs in Nos. 80-0053 and 80-0054.
Charles E. Yates, Moriarty, Mikkelborg, Broz, Wells & Fryer, Seattle, Wash., for plaintiffs in No. 80-0053.
Wayne Minami, Atty. Gen., Nelson S. W. Chang, Deputy Atty. Gen., Honolulu, Hawaii, for defendants the State of Hawaii and the University of Hawaii.
Everett Cuskaden, Oliver, Cuskaden & Lee, Honolulu, Hawaii, for defendant the Research Corp. of the University of Hawaii.
Richard K. Quinn, Stephen A. Nordyke, Michael M. Payne, Honolulu, Hawaii, for defendant The Regents of the University of California.
John A. Roney, Stubenberg, Roney, Hartnett, Lawhn, Fong & Kuwasaki, Honolulu, Hawaii, for defendant Stubenberg.
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS
On December 9, 1978, the M/V HOLOHOLO, a 90-foot Alaskan power scow converted to a yacht and then to a research vessel, sailed from Honolulu, Hawaii, on the second of six planned voyages to an ocean thermal energy conversion ("OTEC") station located 17 nautical miles west of Kawaihae on the Island of Hawaii. The vessel had been chartered by the Research Corporation of the University of Hawaii ("RCUH") pursuant to a subcontract with the University of Hawaii ("UH"), which was in turn operating under a subcontract with defendant The Regents of the University of California ("UC"), which was operating pursuant to a master contract with the United States Department of Energy ("DOE").1 Aboard were the owner, a licensed master of research vessels, a mechanic, and seven marine scientists for a total of ten persons.
The HOLOHOLO did not arrive at Kawaihae on schedule on December 11. A ten-day search for the vessel began on December 12 following notification to the United States Coast Guard on that day. During that search, no trace of the vessel or those aboard was found.2
Plaintiffs brought these wrongful death actions on behalf of themselves and the estates of the presumably deceased persons on the vessel. The actions allege negligent, willful, intentional, or reckless acts or omissions by defendants, their agents, or employees in the design, construction, supervision, control, management, maintenance, alteration, outfitting, entrustment, and operation of the HOLOHOLO. Specifically, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that defendants: (1) intentionally disregarded and violated laws, safety regulations, and established procedures intended to safeguard lives and property at sea; (2) used the HOLOHOLO for ocean operations it was unsafe to perform by reason of its design, hull strength, water tight integrity, and configuration; (3) altered the HOLOHOLO to render it more unsafe and unseaworthy; (4) failed to maintain adequate communications; (5) failed to furnish the vessel with an adequate crew; (6) failed to equip the vessel with adequate lifesaving equipment; and (7) failed promptly to notify the United States Coast Guard so that effective search and rescue could be made. All of these acts or omissions, plaintiffs allege, resulted in requiring their decedents to perform their duties in an unsafe place to work.
Plaintiffs allege that the sinking and presumed deaths occurred either on the navigable waters of the United States, possibly within the waters of the State of Hawaii, or on the high seas of the North Pacific Ocean. The various actions, now consolidated, were brought under the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688 (1975), the Death on the High Seas Act ("DOHSA"), 46 U.S.C. §§ 761-767 (1975), and the General Maritime Law. Jurisdiction lies under 46 U.S.C. § 761 and/or 46 U.S.C. § 688 and the general admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.
The Jones Act provides:
The DOHSA provides:
Plaintiffs seek damages amounting to several millions of dollars under one or both of the statutes or under the general maritime cause of action.
The availability of damages under the Jones Act depends upon whether each of the deceased was a seaman. Since that issue will be determined by the factfinder at the trial, it is treated here in favor of the coverage of the deceased as non-moving parties on motions to dismiss. As to the DOHSA, all indications at this point are that the sinking and deaths occurred on the high seas, i. e., more than one marine league from shore.3 The deceased are "persons" covered by the DOHSA.
The consolidated actions are before this Court on motions to dismiss made by defendants the State of Hawaii, the UH, the RCUH and the UC on the ground that the actions are...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Office of Hawai`Ian Affairs v. Department of Educ.
...rejects the holding of that case. See Act 135, § 1 Session Laws of 1984 (expressly rejecting In re Holoholo; Trens v. Univ. of Hawaii, 512 F.Supp. 889, 896 (D.Haw.1981) (implied consent to suit in federal court, in wrongful death action)). In addition this provision does not waive the state......
-
Beckmann v. Ito, Civ. No. 18-00503 ACK-RT
...immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Mot. at 22. Beckmann responds by providing a half-page block quotation to In re Holoholo, 512 F. Supp. 889 (D. Haw. 1981), in which the court held that the State of Hawaii had waived its sovereign immunity in HRS § 662-2. But that case is no longer goo......
-
Welch v. State Dept. of Highways and Public Transp., 83-2253
...by a state. Several courts have reached this conclusion. Brody v. North Carolina, 557 F.Supp. 184 (E.D.N.C.1983); In re Holoholo, 512 F.Supp. 889, 904 (D.Hawaii 1981); Huckins v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Michigan, 263 F.Supp. 622, 623 (E.D.Mich.1967); Cocherl v. Alaska, 246 F.Supp. 328,......
-
Hoeffner v. University of Minnesota, Civil No. 3-95-958.
...The Plaintiffs urge us, however, to reject the Court's analysis in DeGidio and follow, instead, the Court's analysis in In re Holoholo, 512 F.Supp. 889 (D.Haw.1981). There, under closely analogous circumstances, the Court found an express waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in the languag......