In re Majestic Blue Fisheries, LLC
| Decision Date | 25 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL CASE NO. 11-00032 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Guam |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF MAJESTIC BLUE FISHERIES, LLC, AS OWNER OF THE F/V MAJESTIC BLUE PETITIONING FOR EXONERATION FROM OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY, Petitioner. |
This matter came before the court for trial without the presentation of live testimony or evidence based upon a stipulation entered into between the parties. Docket Entry ("DE") 141. By stipulation, the parties agreed that:
1. The court should consider all motions, responses, and replies already filed and those to be filed by November 6, 2013 in the two related cases (CV11-00032 and CV11-00034).
2. That all experts who have been deposed in the case for either Majestic Blue, Dongwon, or Claimant Amy Hill are qualified to give opinion testimony on the subjects they were proffered to opine on and did opine on in support of the motions, replies, and responses described above.
3. These motions, responses, and replies (including the exhibits cited in support thereof) will be considered as evidence as if presented and received at trial.
4. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and any exhibits attached thereto submitted by the parties will also be considered by the court.
5. All experts who have been deposed in this case for either Majestic Blue, Dongwon, or Claimant Amy Hill are qualified to give opinion testimony on the subjects that they were proffered to opine on. These experts would testify as if at trial only through theirranscribed depositions and no other source or means.
6. In connection with lay testimony, the court will consider all evidence cited in the filed motions, responses and replies, as well as what the parties have submitted in their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, so long as the testimony or exhibit is supported by citation to existing deposition testimony and no other source or means.
7. The trial will move forward based upon the above-described written submissions alone, and no others.
On February 12, 2014, while the matter was pending decision by the court, Petitioner filed a motion to compel Claimant Esther Yang to submit her claim to arbitration. DE 178. In its motion, Petitioner alleged that Chang Cheol Yang, Claimant Yang's deceased husband, entered into an employment agreement with Petitioner on March 23, 2010 to work as Chief Engineer on board the Majestic Blue. The employment agreement provided that all claims arising out of the employee's employment aboard the Majestic Blue be subject to "mandatory binding arbitration." In the alternative, Petitioner moved for summary judgment based upon Claimant Yang's execution of a settlement agreement with Petitioner on July 23, 2010. Therein, it is alleged that she purportedly agreed to settle all disputes arising out of her husband's employment for a certain sum of money payable in Korean currency. After briefing, the court heard the motion on May 28, 2014 and took the matter under advisement. On June 11, 2014 the court denied Petitioner's motion. DE 207.
The court then proceeded to hear closing arguments from the parties on June 18, 2014.
Having taken into consideration the evidence presented in this matter and having further heard closing arguments, the court renders its findings of fact and conclusions of law herein.
Petitioner, the owner of the fishing vessel Majestic Blue, filed a complaint1 for exoneration and limitation of liability in this court, seeking to limit its liability under 46 U.S.C.A. § 30505, for all damages occasioned by the sinking of its vessel the Majestic Blue onJune 14, 2010. Two of the crew members, Captain David Hill and Chief Engineer Yang, lost their lives when the vessel sank. Twenty-two crew members, all of whom boarded the Main Skiff, were rescued hours later.
On February 24, 2012, the Clerk of Court gave Notice to all parties of the action brought by Petitioner for exoneration from or limitation on its liability. DE 40. The Notice directed all claimants desiring to contest the right to exoneration or limitation of liability to file an answer to the petition by March 30, 2012. Claimant Amy Hill filed an answer on March 30, 2012 (DE 45) and claimed her right to the limitation fund. Claimant Esther Yang filed her answer on June 14, 2013. DE 76.
Section 30505 limits the liability of an owner of a vessel for any claim or debt to the value of its vessel and pending freight. In its complaint for exoneration from and limitation of liability, Petitioner alleged that the total value of its interest in the Majestic Blue did not exceed the sum of $33,500.00 which represented the value of the Main Skiff and life jackets as the Majestic Blue sank with all its appurtenances and equipment in the Western Pacific and was not recovered. On February 24, 2012, the court approved Petitioner's declaration of value of its interest in the Majestic Blue in the amount of $33,500.00. DE 38.
In a limitation action, the determination whether a vessel owner may limit its liability involves a two-step process. There must be a (1) a determination of what acts of negligence or unseaworthiness caused the Majestic Blue to sink and (2) whether Petitioner had knowledge or privity of these acts.
In order to limit its liability, Petitioner must show that all claims and losses subject to limitation were "done, occasioned, or incurred, without the privity2 or knowledge of the owner."
In order for Claimants to prevail, they must show that (1) the Majestic Blue was not a seaworthy vessel and illustrate what acts of negligence or unseaworthiness caused the Majestic Blue to sink and (2) show that Petitioner has failed to meet its burden that it had no privity orknowledge of the negligent acts that caused the Vessel to sink or of the ship's unseaworthiness. Thus, Claimants have the initial burden of proving acts of negligence or unseaworthiness that caused the Majestic Blue to sink. Once Claimants satisfy their burden, the burden of proof then shifts to Petitioner to show that it lacked privity or knowledge. If Claimants fail in their burden of proving acts of negligence or unseaworthiness, then Petitioner is exonerated from liability.
In a motion for summary judgment [DE 100] filed herein on September 25, 2013, Claimant Hill included the following exhibits:
1. DE 100-Exhibit A. Affidavit of Jurgen Unterberg.
2. DE 100-Exhibit B. Transcript of Deposition of Jurgen Unterberg.
3. DE 100-Exhibit C. Transcript of Deposition of Thomas Ridenour.
4. DE 100-Exhibit D. Transcript of Deposition of Thomas Ridenour.
5. DE 100-Exhibit E. Transcript of Deposition of Jurgen Unterberg.
6. DE 100-Exhibit F. Authenticated Survey Report of Jurgen Unterberg.
7. DE 100-Exhibit G. Order from General Manager to Captain Hill.
8. DE 100-Exhibit H. Statement of Ellis Taleu, Jr.
9. DE 100-Exhibit I. Daily Noon Reports Produced by Majestic Blue
10. DE 100-Exhibit J. Transcript of Deposition of Thomas Ridenour
On October 26, 2013, Claimant Hill filed herein a listing of the exhibits in the companion case, CV11-00034, that she referenced in support of her motion herein. These exhibits were filed under DE 133 and included below as follows:
11. DE 133-1 and 133-2-Exhibit 1 - Authenticated Survey Report of Jurgen Unterberg (filed in two parts).
12. DE 133-3, 133-4 and 133-5-Exhibit 2 - Photos showing the grossly degraded corroded condition of Vessel (filed in three parts).
13. DE 133-6-Exhibit 3 - May 10, 2010 Capt. Ridenour e-mail to Jurgen Unterberg re: Poor Welds.
14. DE 133-7-Exhibit 4 - May 14, 2010 E-mail from Capt. Hill to his wife re: Chaos onShip.
15. DE 133-8-Exhibit 5 - May 11, 2010 E-mail from Ridenour re: much work left to do.
16. DE 133-9-Exhibit 6 - May 2, 2012) Jurgen Unterberg Deposition Excerpts.
17. DE 133-10-Exhibit 7 - Sampling of Daily Noon Reports of Majestic Blue.
18. DE 133-11-Exhibit 8 - U.S.C.G. Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Examination.
19. DE 133-12-Exhibit 9 - Order from Jurgen Unterberg to Hill regarding Excessive Water Ingress.
20. DE 133-13-Exhibit 10 - U.S.C.G. Activity Summary Report.
21. DE 133-14-Exhibit 11 - Declaration of Ellis Taleu.
22. DE 133-15-Exhibit 12 - Email from Hill while onboard MAJESTIC BLUE to Jurgen Unterberg.
23. DE 133-16-Exhibit 13 - Excerpt- Deposition of Edward Ratigan.
24. DE 133-17-Exhibit 14 - Excerpt from Transcript of Deposition of 3rd Engineer and Survivor Herman Wattimena.
25. DE 133-18-Exhibit 15 - Excerpt from Transcript of Deposition of Bong Soo Kim.
26. DE 133-19-Exhibit 16 - Excerpt from Transcript of Defense Expert Shortall.
27. DE 133-20-Exhibit 17 - May 9, 2010 Email from Ridenour to Unterberg re: no trained crew.
28. DE 133-21-Exhibit 18 - November 18, 2011 - Excerpt from Transcript of Deposition of Thomas Ridenour.
29. DE 133-22-Exhibit 19 - Crew Statement of Sungil Shin.
30. DE 133-23-Exhibit 20 - Crew Statement of Cho Kyehoon.
31. DE 133-24-Exhibit 21 - Excerpt from Deposition of John Timmel.
32. DE 133-25-Exhibit 22 - Email re: need to speak Korean to communicate with Crew.
33. DE 133-26-Exhibit 23 - January 18, 2013 - Excerpt from Transcript of Deposition of Thomas Ridenour Vol. 1.
34. DE 133-27-Exhibit 24 - January 18, 2013 - Excerpt from Transcript of Deposition of Thomas Ridenour Vol. 2. 35. DE 133-28-Exhibit 25 - February 18, 2013 - Excerpt from Transcript of Deposition of Thomas Ridenour Vol. 4.
36. DE 133-29-Exhibit 26 - Excerpt from Transcript of Deposition of Dongwon's Kuk-Hee Han.
37. DE 133-30-Exhibit 27 - Photo of Bilge Pump Push Buttons.
38. DE 133-31-Exhibit 28 - Excerpt from Transcript of Deposition of B.H. Lee.
39. DE 133-32-Exhibit 29 - Crew Statement of Joseph Navarro.
40. DE 133-33-Exhibit 30 - Crew Statement of Keum Moosub.
41. DE 133-34-Exhibit 31 - Excerpt from Transcript of Deposition of Majestic Blue Expert Stephen Tierney.
42. DE 133-35-Exhibit 32 - Email re: need to get a lazy & stupid inspector to pass the Majestic...
To continue reading
Request your trial