In re Trawler Susan Rose, Inc.

• Decision Date: 04 January 2017
• Docket Number: NO: 4:16–CV–00021–BR,: 4:16–CV–00021–BR
• Citation: 227 F.Supp.3d 444
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
• Parties: In the MATTER OF the Complaint of TRAWLER SUSAN ROSE, INC. as Owner of the Fishing Vessel Susan Rose

227 F.Supp.3d 444

In the MATTER OF the Complaint of TRAWLER SUSAN ROSE, INC. as Owner of the Fishing Vessel Susan Rose

NO: 4:16–CV–00021–BR

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Eastern Division.

Signed January 4, 2017

Marissa M. Henderson, David N. Ventker, Ventker Warman Henderson, PLLC, Norfolk, VA, for Plaintiff.

ORDER

W. Earl Britt, Senior U.S. District Judge

This matter is before the court on claimant Stephen Maciura's ("Maciura") motion to stay this action for exoneration from or limitation of liability, lift the injunction restraining actions against limitation plaintiff Trawler Susan Rose, Inc. ("Trawler") as owner of the commercial fishing vessel, F/V SUSAN ROSE, and transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. (DE # 23.) Trawler filed a response in opposition to the motion, (DE # 28), to which Maciura replied, (DE # 29). This matter is therefore ripe for disposition.

I. BACKGROUND

On 18 September 2013, Maciura allegedly sustained injuries to his right hand and wrist while performing duties aboard the F/V SUSAN ROSE as its nets were being set into water in Cape May, New Jersey. Aware of Maciura's claim, Trawler initiated this action on 26 February 2016, seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability under the Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 30501 et seq. ("Limitation Act"), and Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. (DE # 1.) Shortly thereafter, on 7 March 2016, Maciura filed suit in the District of New Jersey against Trawler, Joseph Lee Rose ("Rose"), and the F/V SUSAN ROSE, alleging claims under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104, and the general maritime law of unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure. (See Ex. 2, DE # 24–2.) Maciura also demanded a jury trial on all of his claims as permitted under Fitzgerald v. United States Lines Company , 374 U.S. 16, 83 S.Ct. 1646, 10 L.Ed.2d 720 (1963). (Id. ¶ 4.)

On 11 March 2016, this court entered an injunction and order enjoining the commencement or further prosecution of any action against Trawler arising from Maciura's injuries while the limitation action was pending. (DE # 11.) This court further ordered that all claims arising from the events set forth in the complaint be submitted on or before 10 June 2016. (DE ## 13, 21.) In accordance with this order, Maciura filed an answer to the limitation complaint, (DE # 25), along with a claim of damages for injury on 10 June 2016, (DE # 26). On that same date, Maciura filed the instant motion requesting this court stay the limitation action and lift the injunction so that he may proceed with his personal injury action in the District of New Jersey, and asking for transfer of the limitation action to the District of New Jersey. (DE # 23.) Along with the motion, Maciura submitted a set of stipulations acknowledging that the federal district court has exclusive jurisdiction to decide all issues relating to Trawler's right of limitation. (See Cl.'s Mem., Ex. 7, DE # 24–7.)

II. ANALYSIS

A. Motion to Stay Limitation Action and Lift Injunction

Maciura first moves this court to stay the limitation action and lift the injunction so that he can have his Jones Act and general maritime claims tried before a jury in his chosen forum, the District of New Jersey. (Cl.'s Mem., DE # 24, at 3.) In support of this motion, Maciura invokes the saving to suitors clause, arguing that he is entitled to proceed in the forum of his choice because he is the only claimant and is willing to offer stipulations concerning the district court's jurisdiction over the limitation action. (Id. at 4–5.)

Under the saving to suitors clause, 28 U.S.C. § 1333, "[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of ... [a]ny civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled." The saving to suitors clause "preserves remedies and the concurrent jurisdiction of state courts over some admiralty and maritime claims," including the right to a trial by jury in the claimant's choice of forum. Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc. , 531 U.S. 438, 445, 121 S.Ct. 993, 148 L.Ed.2d 931 (2001) ; see also Beiswenger Enters. Corp. v. Carletta , 86 F.3d 1032, 1037 (11th Cir. 1996) (recognizing the saving to suitors clause "embodies a presumption in favor of jury trials and common law remedies in the forum of the claimant's choice"). The Limitation Act, by contrast, grants federal courts exclusive admiralty jurisdiction over actions to determine whether a vessel owner is entitled to limited liability. See 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) (vesting federal courts with exclusive jurisdiction over "any case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction," including suits pursuant to the Limitation Act). As in all admiralty cases, there is no right to a jury trial in limitation proceedings. Vodusek v. Bayliner Marine Corp. , 71 F.3d 148, 152–53 (4th Cir. 1995). Thus, tension exists between the saving to suitors clause and the Limitation Act as one statute gives suitors a choice of remedies, and the other statute gives vessel owners the right to seek limitation of liability exclusively in admiralty in federal court. See Lewis , 531 U.S. at 448, 121 S.Ct. 993.

To resolve this conflict, the Supreme Court of the United States has carved out two exceptions to the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction conferred on the district courts by the Limitation Act. The first exception occurs when the value of the limitation fund exceeds the aggregate amount of all possible claims against the vessel owner. See Lake Tankers Corp. v. Henn , 354 U.S. 147, 154, 77 S.Ct. 1269, 1 L.Ed.2d 1246 (1957). The second exception arises when there is a single claimant whose claims exceed the value of the fund but who stipulates to the district court's exclusive admiralty jurisdiction to determine any limitation of liability issues. See Langnes v. Green , 282 U.S. 531, 542, 51 S.Ct. 243, 75 L.Ed. 520 (1931) (approving a district court's conclusion "that, where there was only a single claim, there was no need for the adoption of the peculiar and exclusive jurisdiction of the admiralty court; and that an answer setting up the limitation of liability would give the shipowner the relief to which he is entitled"). Where the district court is satisfied that the owner's right to seek limitation will be protected, it is well within the court's discretion to dissolve the limitation injunction and allow the claimant to pursue his claims in the forum of his own choosing. Lewis , 531 U.S. at 454, 121 S.Ct. 993.

In the instant case, Maciura seeks to dissolve the limitation injunction pursuant to the single claimant exception. (Cl.'s Mem., DE # 24, at 3–5.) Trawler does not dispute that Maciura is the only claimant in this case or that he has stipulated to having all limitation issues adjudicated in the district court. (Limitation Pl.'s Resp., DE # 28, at 2.) However, Trawler argues that the saving to suitors clause is applicable only to actions filed in state court. (Id. at 9.) Trawler therefore argues that because Maciura pursued remedies in the District of New Jersey, rather than in a state court, the saving to suitors clause is not applicable and the injunction should not be lifted. (Id. at 9–10.)

The issue in this case centers upon the operation of the saving to suitors clause with respect to Maciura bringing a personal injury suit in a different federal district court. The saving to suitors clause permits a litigant "to take advantage of the procedural differences between the federal court ‘in admiralty’ and that of the non–maritime court." Bourgeois v. Weber Marine, LLC , 80 F.Supp.3d 721, 724 (M.D. La. 2015) (citations omitted). As discussed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, "the effect of the saving-to-suitors clause is to permit maritime in personam claims to be pursued in federal court as maritime (and thus non-jury) claims, in state court as legal claims, or in federal court as legal claims (for which a jury trial is available) if an independent basis for federal jurisdiction exists." In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 356 (4th Cir. 2007). Thus, the saving to suitors clause does allow a claimant to pursue a common-law remedy in federal district court. SeeIn re Norfolk Dredging Co. , No. 7:02–CV–110–FL, 2003 WL 23335933, at *3–4 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 17, 2003) (ruling that a claimant could proceed with his Jones Act and general maritime claims pending on the law side of the district court upon diversity of the parties, during which time the limitation action would be stayed, if he entered into certain stipulations acknowledging the admiralty court's jurisdiction over the limitation action).

Although the saving to suitors clause affords a claimant the option of bringing maritime claims as part of a civil action in federal court, this grant of jurisdiction is limited to in personam maritime claims. See Madruga v. Superior Court of State of Cal. in & for San Diego Cty. , 346 U.S. 556, 560–61, 74 S.Ct. 298, 98 L.Ed. 290 (1954) (holding that in rem claims lie exclusively within the federal court's admiralty jurisdiction and, therefore, are not within the saving to suitors clause). Maciura's complaint makes clear that he brings maritime claims against Trawler and Rose, in personam , as well as against the F/V SUSAN ROSE, in rem. (Compl., DE # 24–2, ¶ 4.) Because an in rem proceeding against a vessel may only be brought on the admiralty side of the federal district court, Maciura cannot invoke the saving to suitors clause for his in rem claims against the F/V SUSAN ROSE.

As to his in personam claims, the saving to suitors clause affords Maciura the option of asserting these claims at law in a federal district court provided there is an independent basis for federal jurisdiction. See Lockheed , 503 F.3d at 356 ; see also Luera v. M/V Alberta , 635 F.3d 181, 195 n.8 (5th Cir. 2011) (holding...