In Re: Powell N Around LLC for Exoneration from Liability as Owner of the Vessel "M/V POWELL N AROUND" ( 2019 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Powell N Around LLC, No. CV-18-08205-PCT-DJH 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 Preston Parson, 13 Claimant. 14 15 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Default Judgment. 16 (Doc. 15). This is a statutory proceeding brought in admiralty concerning a fire on a ship. 17 The Motion is made on the basis of Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 and Rules F(4) and F(5) of the 18 Supplemental Rules of Civil Procedure for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset 19 Forfeiture Actions (“Supplemental Rules”). Petitioner moves for Judgment in its favor 20 against all non-appearing claimants, as no individuals filed claims in this matter within the 21 time period prescribed by the Supplemental Rules. 22 I. Background 23 On June 12, 2018, the M/V Powell N Around (“Vessel”) was conducting refueling 24 operations at Lake Powell, near Page, Arizona, at a fuel dock operated by Antelope Point 25 Marina. (Doc. 1). During the refueling operation, the Vessel caught fire. Petitioner alleges 26 that the fire may have given rise to claims by a service attendant, Preston Parson, who was 27 present during the fire. (Id.) On August 29, 2018, Petitioner filed its Complaint for 28 Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 30501, et seq., and 1 Rule F of the Supplemental Rules. (Doc. 1). Federal District Courts have exclusive 2 jurisdiction over cases arising under Supplemental Rule F. Newton v. Shipman, 718 F.2d 3 959, 962 (9th Cir. 1983). 4 On November 19, 2018, pursuant to the procedures mandated in the Supplemental 5 Rules, the Court issued an Order directing the Clerk of Court to issue a “Monition: Notice 6 to Claimants,” which directed that “[a]ll Claimants shall file their respective claims with 7 the Clerk of this Court at the United States Courthouse, Phoenix, Arizona, in writing and 8 under oath, and serve a copy thereof on the attorneys for Plaintiffs, on or before February 9 20, 2019, or be defaulted.” (Doc. 9). That Order also required Petitioner to publish the 10 Monition in the Lake Powell Chronicle, a newspaper of general circulation, in accordance 11 with Supplemental Admiralty Rule F(4). The Court also ordered that “Petitioner shall mail 12 a copy of this Order to every person and entity known to have asserted any claim against 13 Petitioner or the Vessel, arising out of, resulting from, or in any manner connected with, 14 that which the Complaint in this action seeks exoneration from, or limitation of, liability, 15 to their last known address along with a copy to their employer at the marina where the 16 incident occurred.” (Id.) No claims were received by the Court. On March 25, 2019, the 17 Clerk of Court entered default against all non-appearing claimants. (Doc. 14). Petitioner 18 now seeks an entry of Default Judgment. 19 II. Default Judgment 20 Entry of default judgment is within the court’s discretion. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 21 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Upon entry of default, the factual allegations in the 22 plaintiff’s complaint, except those relating to damages, are deemed admitted. TeleVideo 23 Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1987). For cases brought pursuant to 24 the Supplemental Rules of Civil Procedure, default judgment will be entered against all 25 non-appearing claimants, so long as the petitioners have fulfilled “[their] obligation to 26 publish notice of the limitation proceeding . . . the Notice expressly and clearly states the 27 deadlines for filing a claim and/or answer . . . and [the notice stated] that a consequence of 28 failing to file a timely claim and/or answer was default and being forever barred from filing 1 a claim and/or answer.” In the Matter of X-treme Parasail, Inc., 2011 WL 4572448, at *1 2 (D. Haw. Sept. 12, 2011); See also Supplemental Rule F. In limitation of liability matters, 3 “courts regularly grant a default judgment against claimants who do not answer.” Matter 4 of Duley, 2017 WL 8180609, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 11, 2017). 5 III. Analysis 6 Petitioner has established that the Monition was published in the Lake Powell 7 Chronicle, a newspaper of general circulation, for four consecutive issues beginning on 8 January 9, 2019. (Doc. 11). Moreover, the Monition and Court Order were mailed to all 9 potential claimants, including Mr. Parson and his employer. (Doc. 10). The Monition 10 clearly stated that potential claimants had the obligation to file claims by February 20, 11 2019, or be defaulted. (Doc. 11) No potential claimant, individual or entity, filed an 12 Answer or claim in this action by February 20, 2019, nor has any claimant appeared in this 13 action in the nine months since the deadline passed. The Court finds that Petitioner fulfilled 14 its obligations under the Supplemental Rules. Moreover, Petitioner will be prejudiced if 15 this case remains unresolved. As referenced above, no claimants have responded to the 16 Monition or the Application for Default or Motion for Default Judgment. Petitioner has 17 no alternative means by which to resolve this matter and would indefinitely suffer prejudice 18 without the availability of default judgment. See Pepsico, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. 19 Supp. 2d 1172, 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2002). Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion will be granted and 20 this matter will be closed. 21 Accordingly, 22 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 23 15) is granted. Pursuant to Supplemental Rule F, Petitioner is exonerated from liability 24 on all claims arising out of the incident involving the Vessel described herein. 25 … 26 … 27 … 28 … 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment || accordingly and terminate this matter. 3 Dated this 5th day of December, 2019. 4 5 Do wen □ 6 norable'Diang/4. Hurmetewa 7 United States District Fudge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4-